When considering what type of equipment or organisational structures are relevant to the future vertical lift (including attack) the first step is to look at basic requirements.
Be it weight class, mission, payload or other factors there are clearly different types. One size does not and cannot fit all. This is where an interesting discussion can take place; I think one of the principal means of getting more value out of our not inconsiderable defence budget is through ruthless commonality and its resultant reduction in types.
How far do you go with this though, do the obvious financial and logistics benefits of commonality get trumped by the inevitable compromises that having fewer types would bring?
Therefore, instead of starting with types and specs I am going to look at what we use helicopters for, these are generally grouped into 3 categories, find, attack and lift with a few extra specialists roles.
Training; with the greater use of synthetic training systems the need for multiple types of training helicopter may be reduced but the basic need to train on the real thing will not go away.
Light Utility/Lift; this might include the plethora of tasks that helicopters get used for, everything from moving a small team, command, convoy escort, moving a few personnel from one ship to another, checking communications, conducting a route recce, delivering a high value spare part and many many more. What characterises these requirements is that do not necessarily need high speed or high payloads, often the payload is simply a few people.
Find; in the past this might have resulted in a specialist type but with the proliferation of sensor turrets, modular ESM systems and data links in most aircraft and UAV’s the need for a dedicated reconnaissance helicopter is diminishing with the role split between the attack and light utility helicopter.
Medium/Heavy Lift; there is some room for having different definitions of what medium and heavy lift means and specifically, whether there still exists a need for medium lift if we can do everything with the heavier and more capable types. Typically, the medium point means a section or enhanced section plus some stores and the ability to carry some self defence weapons or about 4 tonnes payload. Heavy lift might be defined as 30-40 personnel or about 8-10 tonnes payload. One of the most vexing questions is concerned with the top end of heavy lift, is 10 tonnes enough given the trend in vehicle weight and size (a trend that informed the A400 for example)
Anti Submarine; helicopters are one of the most potent anti submarine weapons, equipped with various specialist sensors and weapons.
Dedicated Attack; evolving from the Huey gunships of the 60’s is the dedicated attack helicopter. These are fast, high manoeuvrable, survivable and heavily armed. Latter generations concentrated on the anti tank role but in modern operations this has been joined by a number of offensive support tasks in direct support of the infantry in close combat. For this the cannon and rocket are the most common weapons used, not expensive guided missiles.
Medical Evacuation; the ability to evacuate injured personnel to a medical facility is vital and recent advances in combat emergency medicine have seen the Chinook used in this role because of its speed and space for medical personnel and equipment but in some circumstances a smaller type is needed.
Search and Rescue: whether in the civilian context or in the military Joint Personnel Recovery role the requirement is characterised by the need for long range, stability in the hover and capacity.
Airborne Early Warning; a niche application but nevertheless vital, the lessons of 1982 were quite clear but with CVF moving to cats and traps this capability may be better serviced with a fixed wing type, the obvious contender being the Hawkeye
Where this gets complicated is the need for operations at sea. Surely one would think that a homogonous fleet, able to operate equally from a ship or land base would make sense from a logistics, operational and training perspective but this is the MoD we are talking about. We have service led procurements that have resulted in a mixed fleet of aircraft that in some cases do much the same thing but only some can operate at sea.
Although not specifically a mission, but definitely a requirement, is the ability to operate, not just land, from ships.
Any look at the future must surely specify marinised systems, folding rotors etc even if the main user is not the Royal Navy or Royal Marines.
There have also been some interesting technology developments recently (lighter than air, compound helicopters, variable speed rotors and various tilt rotor technologies for example) which although might be seen as technology driving requirements, do allow us to look again at those requirements and ask if they are still valid.
In the next post I am going to look at what we have and what we plan to have and follow that up with a few ideas for the future.
## Other posts in this series ##
The Future of the RAF 01 – Introduction
The Future of the RAF 02 – Tasks and Trends
The Future of the RAF 03 – A Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 04 – Fast Jets
The Future of the RAF 05 – A Bargain Basement
The Future of the RAF 06 – A Reverse Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 07 – ISTAR #01
The Future of the RAF 08 – ISTAR #02 (DABINETT)
The Future of the RAF 09 – ISTAR #03 (SIGINT)
The Future of the RAF 10 – ISTAR #04 (Watchkeeper and Scavenger)
The Future of the RAF 11 – ISTAR #05 (Manned Airborne ISTAR)
The Future of the RAF 12 – ISTAR #06 (High Altitude Platforms)
The Future of the RAF 13 – ISTAR #07 (Maritime)
The Future of the RAF 14 – Strategic Transport and Refuelling
The Future of the RAF 15 – Tactical Transport
The Future of the RAF 16 – Vertical Lift #01 (Introduction)
The Future of the RAF 17 – Vertical Lift #02 (Basic Requirements)
The Future of the RAF 18 – Vertical Lift #03 (A Sensible Future)
The Future of the RAF 19 – Vertical Lift #04 (A Radical Future)
The Future of the RAF 20 – Building Regional Security
The Future of the RAF 21 – Summary
Few extra things that come to mind :
Maritime strike – arguably a separate tasking, requiring more search capability and longer-range weapons. Unlike many land targets, even quite small FAC might have a 76mm that would be dangerous to helicopters, and flotilla leaders in the Third World typically have something along the lines of Gecko/HQ-7/Aspide/Crotale which pushes engagement range out beyond Hellfire range. The Sea Kings used to carry Sea Eagle, but the ability to carry medium/heavy AShM’s is something we’ve lost. Sea Skua is nice, as is Brimstone, but Penguin/NSM would be a useful capability upgrade that is already widespread across NATO.
I’d split the transports into passengers and cargo, just to give yourself the chance to see whether aerial cranes (and hence modularity, yeay) have a role, either in heavy-ish lift or in lightweight FOB replenishment by UAVs. I guess you could throw in naval VERTREP as well. These can probably be done by your passenger aircraft, but it’s as well to ask the question separately.
There’s also a bit of overlap with COD and STOL transports – we probably can’t justify a separate Greyhound equivalent, but I suspect that Chinooks end up doing quite a lot of stuff that in fact could be done by a STOL transport. Given the cost of operating whirlybirds, the first question should always be – can we do this with fixed-wing instead?
The other question is whether they need to be manned – the USN seems to be going for the MQ-8B enthusiastically, I can see how aside from recce it could be used for eg torpedo delivery (although a longer-range ASROC for Sylver would also be nice)
Few others :
The ninja-knifefighters always seem to need custom variants. I know we’ve not got the best record on that front to say the least, but it’s probably worth bearing in mind.
Mine clearance – it’s bonkers in some ways given the fuel costs of using helicopters for mine clearance, and of course it’s a capability plus for the RN, but that’s the way the US and Japan do it, the latter with their Merlin transports. The answer is almost certainly no, but it might be an idea in times of less budgetary pressure to get a couple of Merlins fitted up and trained up for quick-response minesweeping. Alternatively, you could turn it into a homeland defence mission and give it to some of the SAR birds?
El Sid
out of interest, have a look here for a torpedo carrying UAV
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/
“Although not specifically a mission, but definitely a requirement, is the ability to operate, not just land, from ships.
Any look at the future must surely specify marinised systems, folding rotors etc even if the main user is not the Royal Navy or Royal Marines.”
Just a thought.
The Apache Fleet In Afghanistan doesnt “do” vertical take off.
It uses its wheels to drive along, increaseing its effective speed so it can take off over loaded.
Dont Navy Lynxs have sleds instead of wheels?
Is there a reason for that?
El Sid
I would have thought a low level Lynx can see a Daring before the Daring can see the Lynx.
Might be wrong of course. Even if its “in range” would the ship be able to counter effectivly?
That said, after seaing how entirely crap small anti ship missiles are against ships, I’m not sure they’re worth the effort. Note the location, phone home for a proper missile carrying a broach….
DominicJ, Apache does that in Afghan as they need the extra air speed over the rotor to lift of with their all up wieght. Arghan is a “hot and high” environment that saps power from the engines. On a ship at sea level this is not really an issue.
Lynx has Sea Skua and a new heavier version is in the pipe line. There may be a reason we don’t have larger anti ship missiles…..they are less effective against ships with advanced air defense and when was the last time we attacked a large ship from the air/surface? our sub fleet has all the teeth now.
TD – not seen that site before, obviously was aware of the QH-50. Interesting some of the uses it ended up getting put to – and the $2.2m cost in 1986. From memory the USN’s Sea Scouts are costing them $10-12m, so I suppose comparable given typical military inflation.
@DJ – the Apache STOL is a hotnhigh thing – not typically a problem at sea level… (and do the Westland ones do it, given their more powerful engines?)
I think only the Army Mk7 Lynxes have skids….
As for your “would have thought” on Daring vs Lynx – let’s just say you might want to think again….
Obviously you’re not going to be killing carriers with helicopter-launched missiles, from memory the Sea Skua warhead is only 30kg or so, but for FAC they’re good enough. Still, it’d be nice to have something heavier – Penguin is 120kg or so – onboard without having to wait around for FJ-based BROACH missiles to turn up. Aside from the fact that fast air may not be available (not every RN helicopter is going to be part of a carrier group) or too far away (FAC tend to be hard to detect, particularly in the littoral, and the “F” means they need to be sorted quickly) – a £800k Storm Shadow plus the cost of getting it there is complete overkill in the kind of case we’re talking about. For bigger ships, you may get a mission kill even if you don’t get the full Titanic.
Hi el Sid,
RE”flotilla leaders in the Third World typically have something along the lines of Gecko/HQ-7/Aspide/Crotale which pushes engagement range out beyond Hellfire range”
- very good point, seems to be forgotten most of the time (any missile will do for ASuW…)
- if you get within range, have you seen the piccies of the tests in Norway (before they selected Hellfire)?
Skids vs wheels (@DJ): how do you think you get the Lynx from the landing spot into the hangar?
Where I am totally “at sea” is how do you lash down helos on those ships that do not have a hangar?
@el sid correct mk 7 has skids and up until i left the Rm were only operating the mk7, there was a reason but i can’t remeber it (probably something to do with money!). if you look at US apaches in the ‘stan they are flying without the longbow attached up top, unlike ours due to less powerful engines in the hot an’ high envoirment (to be remedied in the block III enhancement programme).
Pab
An Argentine vessel took several sea skua hits, sailed home and was ready for a second round long before the war was over.
That was sort of my point, the heli can find the target, the submarine or ship can loose off a SeaShadow to destroy it.
El Sid
Our Apaches do it too, or a book I read (Apache dawn?) said they did.
“I think only the Army Mk7 Lynxes have skids….”
Hmm, I thought the army ones got wheel, the navy ones skids, could be wrong of course, in which case, me wrong, ignore.
“As for your “would have thought” on Daring vs Lynx – let’s just say you might want to think again…”
I was thinking very low flight, running silent, relying on the emiisions of the daring, yeah your probably right, but the Daring has a very nifty radar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Alferez_Sobral_(A-9)#Falklands_War
Two Sea Skua hits, including a direct hit on the bridge, and it sailed home…
Perhaps we dont need to go all the way up to a SeaShadow, but it would be nice to have something in between, launched from the ship, at targets located by the helicopter.
Admitadly, it was misison killed in this case, but it was a rescue tug from the second world war.
I really dont see it misson killing modern escorts, never mind carriers.
ACC
You know the thought did occur, I assumed they had mini wheels mounted in the sleds and were pulled.
My Point was more, the Apache has, and uses, its wheels for STO. A Sled mounted version wouldnt be able to.
If you “need” sleds for operating at sea, you have a problem.
If you dont, and I suspect you dont, then you dont have a problem. But now I’m even confusing myself, so I’ll just be quiet and go read about chickens.
Hi DJ,
Have a look at the link GJ provided for (three different proposed) Sea Apaches – all of this is there, in great detail.
The USMC Zulu has turned out wonderfully (it is pronounced “dead” in that article!) but I can’t stop admiring the entrepreneurial spirit in the US:
- take attack radars off decommissioned Tomcats and put them in on Apaches… or, turn Apaches to Harrier equivalents, so more task forces can sail without a carrier “in tow” etc…
Given the cost of operating whirlybirds, the first question should always be – can we do this with fixed-wing instead?
I know this was said with relation to COD and STOL transports, but I’d say it’s generally applicable and the best thing to be said so far in this thread. The question should be: do we absolutely need a hovering or VTOL platform to do this job? And if the answer’s “no” then we should seriously consider not getting one.
Going down the (rather handy) list of roles in the original post:
Training – yes, by definition.
Light Utility/Lift – yes.
Find – as noted, not really; and I am extremely sceptical (as I mentioned on the Wildcat thread) about the value of fitting FIND kit onto a light utility platform. This seems to be trying to get the same platform to do two very different tasks. FIND platforms need to be reliable and long-endurance, and fast would be nice too; they don’t necessarily need to take off vertically or hover. LIFT platforms need VTOL, survivability, and plenty of space in the back. Why stick $10m worth of sensors on the bottom of an $8m flying pickup truck?
Medium/Heavy Lift – yes. (Though I echo your scepticism about whether one actually needs a separate Medium Lift fleet.)
Anti Submarine – to operate things like dipping sonar, yes – and also to allow them to take off from helipads.
Dedicated Attack – here again I am a bit sceptical. We don’t fly our AH from austere airstrips in the middle of nowhere – they take off from proper air bases. Technology’s advanced to the point where they can find and engage multiple targets on the move; they don’t need to hover to fire, and as the US Army’s Apaches found out, hovering stationary over a battlefield gets you shot up. Plus, having AH means that we are tying our close air support to an unreliable and slow platform; putting all the Apache kit on a fixed-wing platform would give something faster and longer-legged, and (because fixed-wing) not only more reliable but also probably more survivable. As I remarked on the Wildcat thread, the existence of the AH is a result of the USAF not wanting the US Army to have its own fixed-wing combat aircraft; it does not necessarily follow that it’s significantly better than a dedicated CAS fixed-wing platform would be.
Medical Evacuation – yes. But this needn’t be a separate platform (not that you were implying it was), it can be done by the heavy lift platform.
Search and Rescue – yes; another role for the heavy lift platform with extended-range tanks and/or AAR.
Airborne Early Warning – no.
Maritime strike – no.
Hi a,
I will take an opposing strand to your FIND & AH argument, as well as to:
Airborne Early Warning – no.
Maritime strike – no.
Just to warm up (on the last two), how would you group the RN (assuming that one in three of every type is not available?
Fast forward to 2020 (so that you can factor a carrier in as well).
I wouldn’t get too hung up on the Argie tugboat – it was mission killed despite only taking hits to the superstructure, and tugs tend to be quite solidly built (particularly in the Good Old Days). GW1 was the real heyday of the Lynx/Sea Skua combo – Wiki has a good summary – it was pretty effective at its intended purpose, taking out FAC before they got close enough to be bothersome, plus minelayers and LSM’s. @DJ, if you thought I was being in any way serious about carriers, or indeed fleet escorts from 1st world navies, I was obviously not being obvious enough. That’s not what Sea Skua is about. But the Third World has huge numbers of FACs and corvettes in the 300-1500t range, that could be bothersome to a forward-presence frigate or convoy.
That’s why I’d disagree with @a’s “no” to VTOL maritime strike. It’s not something to spend a lot of money on but given that the likes of Brimstone and Penguin already exist, it’s a useful capability to have in the locker for the Merlin/Lynx on forward-presence ships and convoy escorts operating far from land air or carriers.
Plus we don’t have Storm Shadow on ships yet, and AIUI it’s not currently set up for naval targets. Penguin is already integrated on Lynxes, and it shouldn’t be too hard to do something similar with Brimstone.
@paul g – I’d forgotten the RM’s had Mk7′s, which is mebbe what @DJ was thinking of. Sleds are a liability on ships – the main reasons for having them are that they’re cheaper and lighter than wheels, so you still see them on some light helicopters where weight is all-important.
@ACC – just on your last point, while you can never have enough AEW, I think in the current environment we’ll have to run with Hawkeyes on the carrier and T45 for everything else. It’d be great to have a few AEW Merlins (or K-MAX with an AEW module available) on the amphibs, but it’s not realistic unless we go back into the CVH game again.
I’ll also throw EW and ELINT into the mix as things we ought to be thinking about that could perhaps be done (admittedly not brilliantly) via a modular helicopter system rather than apeing the USN’s Growlers and ES-3A. Not ideal, and UAVs are probably the answer for ELINT at least, but they are possible tasks.
Hi El Sid.
Good that you put this one up (otherwise I would be “bear baiting” a on our brewing argument):
” while you can never have enough AEW, I think in the current environment we’ll have to run with Hawkeyes on the carrier and T45 for everything else. It’d be great to have a few AEW Merlins (or K-MAX with an AEW module available) on the amphibs, but it’s not realistic”
- yes, can never have too much; and why not e.g. 8 Merlin conversions?
- but assume we only have one carrier at sea at any time
- how about the rest ??(my question @a)
Today’s naval-technology.com carries this piece; not exactly that every 3rd world corvette will have it, but do note the ASuW range, establishing a new standard… and without a helo- borne answer, I think there will be no answer on anything smaller than t45 (Launch not necessarily from under the sea, but above, and from aircraft the range would be slightly enhanced from the 290 km quoted… btw, was it a 300kg warhead on this one?)
“India is to test fire the submarine-launched version of its supersonic cruise missile, Brahmos, by the end of this year, BrahMos Aerospace chief A Sivathanu Pillai said.
“We will test-fire the underwater version by the end of this year after we get the pontoon for the purpose,” he added.
The test firing of the missile, with a range of 290km, would be carried out at Integrated Test Range in Balasore on Orissa coast, India.
BrahMos underwater missiles will have the same capabilities as its earlier variants and will be capable of striking both land and sea-based targets.
Indian armed forces have already placed orders worth Rs200bn ($4.3bn).”
Wheels / Skids – Wheels for Naval applications, so you can manouvre the aircraft around the flight deck. I think RM tasked AAC Lynx Mk7 (the cabs loaned to 3 BAS) have small maneuvering wheels attached to the skids ?
Small helicopter anti-ship missiles: Read this link on what it takes to actually sink ships: http://cgblog.org/2011/03/14/what-does-it-take-to-sink-a-ship/
Back in the day – we used to work on the premise that 4 Skua would ruin the day of a Soviet Krivak class’ skipper, maybe not even mission kill ! But it is “only” money that has stopped us fitting something bigger to the Merlin, even if Lynx / Wildcat could not carry it. Both Merlin and Wildcat are your offboard targetting system for your onboard ASM (Harpoon for T23, and , oh yeah, nothing for T45). Similarly they are your spotting platform for naval gunfire.
Don’t forget Naval helo’s are by definition multi-role. Lynx and Wildcat are ‘Find’ (really dont like that definition), light utility / lift (fast roping boarding parties, spare part runs, VERTREP etc), Attack, and ASW. Merlin just does it all on a bigger scale, but currently limited in the Attack role.
AEW – they are not called AEW anymore, as the SearchWater radar is multi-function. They are Airborne Surveillance and Control (ASaC) platforms, which is why they are being used in Afghanistan in the mini-JSTAR’s role. So even if we got E2C for the carrier, I would keep 8 or 9 Merlin ASaC in the fleet for AEW/Surv. flexibility.
The next anti-ship missile for Navy Wildcat is intended for corvette size targets and smaller (including small fast attack craft).
———-
Most skiddy helicopters -if not all- will have a set of wheels that clamp on to the skids for ground handling.
Lynx7 has two types of ground handling wheels; one which includes an electric trolley, so that you don’t need a vehicle to tow it.
Thank you, jed:
“Naval helo’s are by definition multi-role. Lynx and Wildcat are ‘Find’ (really dont like that definition), light utility / lift (fast roping boarding parties, spare part runs, VERTREP etc), Attack, and ASW. “
The original concept for anti-tank helicopters (rather than attack helicopters, like the original Cobra) was to hover in ambush behind trees, ridges, etc. The scout helicopters would pass on targeting info and their missile armed brothers would “pop up” and engage the mass tank formations. Now, with the return to the original attack role, they are performing missions perhaps best left to CAS aircraft?
On the lack of LongBow on US Apaches, they believe they don’t need them for essentially CAS jobs so save wear and tear by relying on other ISTAR sources. We Brits however are set up differently and swear by it for COIN work.
Hi BB,
What’s this?
“The next anti-ship missile for Navy Wildcat is intended for corvette size targets [~ Hellfire] and smaller (including small fast attack craft[~ Brimstone]).
Hi Gareth,
“performing missions perhaps best left to CAS aircraft”
- why?
- and, btw, other than A-10, what are they?
GJ got mates who fly the ugly callsign, it’s defo a weight issue with the yanks and longbow, sounds like a handy soundbite to throw out no-one likes to say that someone has made the kit bought off them better!
Gareth @ 2.37
There are number of issues, with Apache its not just the favored doctrine or use case.
US Army bought lots of Apaches before Longbow radar was developed. They have an upgrade and conversion process, which is ongoing.
British Army selected Longbow Apache and bought all 67 fitted with the radar.
So it’s not just that we have indeed found good uses for the radar in the sandpit, but that we would have had to dismantle it anyway in order to NOT take it with us.
Ref Anti-tank versus ‘gunship’ helo. This is all correct, which is why UK went with Lynx, France with Gazelle and Germany with Bo105 as light weight, un-armoured anti-tank missile platforms. The US of course with hundreds if not thousands of Cobra’s updated them and added TOW.
So, anyway, I seem to be adding my theory to all threads where helo are discussed, so I will add it here too:
Longbow Apache, with its armour protection, DAS, improved optics and radar should be considered the armed scout (or FIND).
For other more mundane ‘gunship’ tasks, and major anti-armour use if we ever need it, a medium multi-role utility machine like the AW149 can be used. It is big enough to carry cockpit armour, DAS including multi-threat sensors and active countermeasures (DIRCM) and of course an EO turret for both Nav / night flying / targetting. With upto 16 Brimstone in the anti-armour role, the Longbow Apache would fly into harms way to get the targetting data and squirt it over the link to the ‘hiding’ AW149 missile trucks for the ambush.
In more recently common sandpit scenarios, the Aw149 may self designate for DMB, laser guided rockets or fall back on rocket pods and 12.7mm door guns etc.
Being a bigger aircraft than Wildcat, the AW149 would actually be far more useful as light lift for personnel and medevac tasking etc.
So that’s my suggestion (again, if you have not got it yet):
AAC – FIND /Attack – Longbow Apache
AAC – Medium Utility & Lift / Attack / FIND – AW149
FAA – Maritime / Littoral multi-role – Wildcat.
You’ll buy the damn thing and you’ll bloody well enjoy it, ACC; no complaining please.
The UK’s FASGW programme has been rolled up with a similar French programme, what with the spirit of cooperation and everything between us now.
Where are all the unmanned Helo’s when you need them ???
Water dropping helo’s forced back from Japanese nuclear plant due to radiation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12763273
@ Jed
Have to agree with you, i think the AAC should have Apache and the AW149 and the FAA should get all Wildcats as there’s not enough for both.
Some good arguments made there in favour of maritime strike helis – I am willing to change my mind on that one. (Though is there any reason why you need a missile actually on the heli, rather than on the ship and simply cued by the heli? This would allow you to have bigger missiles, more of them, and a lighter heli…)
Also the point that naval helis need to be more flexible, because you’ll generally only have one or two of them…
AEW – I will stick with the idea that this doesn’t have to be a VTOL platform. You’re not going to fly an AEW bird off an escort’s helideck anyway, so they may as well be fixed-wing.
Jed noted “AEW – they are not called AEW anymore, as the SearchWater radar is multi-function. They are Airborne Surveillance and Control (ASaC) platforms, which is why they are being used in Afghanistan in the mini-JSTAR’s role. So even if we got E2C for the carrier, I would keep 8 or 9 Merlin ASaC in the fleet for AEW/Surv. flexibility.”
Good point – that naval ASAC can be used in land warfare. But why can’t we use E2C (or whatever we pick for fixed-wing AEW) in this mini-JSTARS role as well? Plenty of runways in Afghanistan; we need a VTOL radar platform even less there than we do at sea.
For the naval role as well, we definitely need to be thinking about unmanned systems. For one thing they’re smaller, so you can fit more in the hangar!
@ A – Land ASaC; http://www.g2mil.com/Hawkeye.htm
RE: Helicopter types; Interesting ideas from Phil West’s Scrapboard page;
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/4helio.html
The MH-2000X idea is a bit pants but the idea of a heavy-lift compound rotor craft isn’t… Rotodyne maybe?
Hi a,
You get about 10 Merlin airframes for a fully kitted out E2C. And we have the kit, to lift out from the Sea Kings.
France had two of those birds and they found that one more was needed.
Just read everyone’s comments RE: Apache/Longbow – obviously faulty intel, I stand corrected.
Getting way off topic for a moment, I have always wondered about anti ship missiles. The best way to sink a ship is to explode something big under it’s keel rather than send it into it’s superstructure. Build an updated Ikara and drop a torpedo outside the targets CIWS umbrella . . .
@ a
“Jed noted “AEW – they are not called AEW anymore, as the SearchWater radar is multi-function. They are Airborne Surveillance and Control (ASaC) platforms, which is why they are being used in Afghanistan in the mini-JSTAR’s role. So even if we got E2C for the carrier, I would keep 8 or 9 Merlin ASaC in the fleet for AEW/Surv. flexibility.”
Good point – that naval ASAC can be used in land warfare. But why can’t we use E2C (or whatever we pick for fixed-wing AEW) in this mini-JSTARS role as well? Plenty of runways in Afghanistan; we need a VTOL radar platform even less there than we do at sea.”
We have Sea King and Merlin, we do not have Hawk Eye. That would be another platform, mores logs, more training and we would only have a handfull of them. CVF arn’t even built yet and we are told that one will never fly fixed wing, will the other??? who knows. UK is broke and I can’t see us buying E2C unless it is to also replace E3 Sentry too and that ain’t going to happen. In an ideal world with a better defence budget then most will agree that Hawk Eye would be a great asset, but we’re not in that world
Wasn’t the attempt at buying Merlin in both RAF and RN an attempt at keeping the different types of airframes down?
Sadly when the CHF gets their mittens on the HC3/3A, they’ll have to go through ‘navalisation’ since even they weren’t adapted…the MoD being tight… probably will lead to more cost and – worse – time spent on getting then ready to replace the junglies.
Jed;
Whats your suggestion for the RAF?
Perhaps stick with the Chinook? What of the Pumas? Since we are going ahead with them, at the moment very little is publicised about their whereabouts, primarilly since they are in the support roles, second line, helping the green machine work…training troops in Kenya amongst them… we’d still need a medium/light transport/logistics chopper…bigger than Lynx, but smaller than Merlin/Chinook… I would rather have the new Eurocopter Cougar versions in that role, rather than sqweeze out the Pumas still…. since they have clearly been shown to be very adaptable, just the thing if its going to be detached off all over the place in specialist, support and training roles on smaller scales, leaving the bigger aircrft to to bigger operations.
I think the AAC should keep the AH9A and Flynx, their Apaches are among the best of the breed out there (also their pilots
) Whilst the RN the HM2 of the Merlin should put things right and finally modernise it…. the main thing I was told by a ex army lynx pilot turned dark blue was that even if a RN Merlin had a contact…it’d be left to a Lynx or the ship to take it out… that shouldn’t be the case but more often than not it is… since the Merlin crews prefer having a larger range.
As with AEW/ASaC… I agree firmly with ‘a’… we cant really debate about what we should have until we have finally sorted out what aircraft and what setting the carriers will be in….heck, if we have cat and traps, then why have a rotary AEW when we could have fixed wing? Cost I know… if that was the case, then the Merlin I’d bet, KISS and all.
Whatever we go for, it should be integrated with out ISTAR and E3 fleet, thats for certain.
(btw, anyone heard about Algeria thinking of asking Westland for an AEW helicopter? Apparently they are also going to buy into the wildcat)
But attaining more commonality…well thats going to be difficult.
Especially with Westlands strangle hold…looking forward to how this one goes!
The problem with Merlin is that it was a Navy helicopter from the begining and the RAF were told that they were getting it too. so yes it started off as a slant towards commonality. The Navy wanted a helo for chasing Russian subs and in that role it is excellent, world class even? Merlin is the Rolls Royce of the sky and the costs show that. The issue is that we don’t need a Rolls Royce to do this and the Russian sub threat is no more (well, less anyway). This is all said with the benefit of hind sight though.
The UK now operate too many fleets of helos and the cost and unefficiency must be staggering despite the excellent work done by our guys and girls on the ground/air.
The SDSR is the kick in the arse that we need.
My Short term strategy would be to ditch Puma and Sea King. Give Sea King to the SAR fleet for spares etc seeing as the PFI fell through.
RAF get more chinooks, CHF get ex RAF Merlin, and then keep the rest the same. We will have a gap in the medium lift for the next few years but what’s new there. We chould not be kicking down anyone’s door anytime soon unless we have to.
Long term, Keep Apache, ditch Lynx, get AW 149 for medium list, CHF and Navy and lots of Chinok foor heavy lift. A light utility helo is a luxury that can be performed by other platforms.
I wonder what would have been a better use of our limited funds – two QE sized carriers and 40ish F-35C’s, plus all the development costs or 2 – 3 helicopter carriers, with air defence and CAS covered by some newly purchased fully marine capable AH (rather than short term deployable like the current Apache) with multi-mode AESA radar and 6 hard points, capable of carrying if need be 2 ASRAAM and AMRAAM. I reckon for the money we will spend on 2 QE’s carriers and 40 F-35C’s we could have easily purchased 3 BPE’s and 90 – 100 new AH with multi-role radar (obvious choice would be the previously mentioned Sea Apache). Of course a AH does not have range for strike, but with an AESA radar could a AH provide CAP for an amphibious task force?
If we get to nominate helicopters for certain roles, then I would go with converted Merlin’s for the maritime Medium Lift, and 80 Mi-171′s with BAE designed cockpit to replace Puma’s and the loss of the Merlin’s in RAF service. If we need a maritime capable utility helicopter, then I suggest the Kamov- Ka-64 Sky Horse. Bit smaller than the Mi-171 but might be a suitable replacement for our Sea Kings.
@ Peter – Great minds think alike… I was thinking of something like the Petrel, with fuel in the Wings/attachment “pod” with a small turbojet/fan mounted above or behind;
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-41.html
@ Tubby
Apache with an A2A role would only really be successful against other helos and today’s crop of UAVs. As soon as you put AH against modern Russian, Chinese or whoevers fighter aircraft we will start to see AHs falling from the sky. They cannot fly high or fast enough. To carry out a full on amphib assault requires SEAD and destruction of enemy air power and all sorts of other strikes first. As long as we only take on 3rd rate African dictators then we’ll be fine and a T45 or two will do the job that they were intended for, otherwise we need fast air. The carrier game is expensive, very few compromises in doing it properly. I’m liking your Mil-17 suggestion! It’s a great helo, does what we need, robust and cheap. Now, lets hand them onto BAE for the final paint job and see the price trebble!
Tubby said: “with air defence and CAS covered by some newly purchased fully marine capable AH (rather than short term deployable like the current Apache) with multi-mode AESA radar and 6 hard points, capable of carrying if need be 2 ASRAAM and AMRAAM”
Why not just bring back Harrier GR9/9A and spend the cash on them ? Either fit an AESA in the nose, or carry it in a centerline pod (admittedly antenna size might be an issue, but you could have a rear facing antenna too !).
It if comes down to it just fit Link 16 (if they dont have already?) and swap out the LARBS in the nose for the Typhoon’s PIRATE IRST. “Look down – shoot down” targetting daya for AMRAAM provided by ASaC (or even surface ship radars) and ISRT as backup. Far from perfect, but cheaper than buying completely new assets. Of course that would mean admitting an error and returning the Ark Royal to service, so its not going to happen either……
However there maybe something to be said about having the two biggest LPH in the world – just forget cats and traps, fit some ASTER cells, sponsons for combat boat 90′s and lots of “austere” accommodation for bootnecks. Surely they could carry 12 x Naval Wildcat, 12 x CHF Merlin, 12 x AAC Apache and 12 x Chinook (If we fit manual blade folding). Is there anything really so wrong with having uber LPH ????
Jed, ubber LPHs would be great but i’d probably rather 3 smaller Ocean type vessels, not built to commercial stds this time though! Although I do have a feeling that’s exactly what CVF will turn into though.
Britain has a £100 billion a year trade deficit. We can no longer import everything on debt. We need to produce as much food,energy & goods as we can.
So Westland is better than unaffordable imports.
Small AW169 for training/police/VIP/air ambulance/liason.
Wildcat, AW149 & Merlin for heavier duties.
Could the Merlin carry & launch a Storm Shadow cruise missile?
If the Yanks wont buy our tankers, lets not buy more Chinooks. However lets get the most out of our existing Chinooks. I see Japanese Chinooks have water carrying fire fighting buckets. Do any of ours have these buckets? I doubt it.
@Gareth – Thanks for the link! The Petrel is a new one on me but imagine what a modern one could do?
TD
“One of the most vexing questions is concerned with the top end of heavy lift, is 10 tonnes enough given the trend in vehicle weight and size (a trend that informed the A400 for example)”
I dont think these too areas are the same. Part of the reason for going to a440m is as you highlight the weight increase on the medium weight vehicle. But for me in the Fixed wing case the bigger issue was the Cross Section of Hercules. We were bulking out before we were maxing out in weight, particularly in logistics vehicles. Fitting vehicles into a Chinook is a capability that in practise isn’t often used most of the time they’ll be under slung are they not. Ocelot at 7.5 tns can be carried by Chinook as can viking light forces should be kept light.
I agree I dont think we can ever reduce the helicopter fleet below about 4 types, attack, light, medium, heavy but were we can reduce cost is ensuring that we keep common things like DAS, avionics and engines these are were the most thru life cost comes from also if the cockpit is the same type rating across the different types will also be easier. These may not be easy to achieve as it would possible require a single manufacturer for all types.
I we could start with a blank sheet I would probably go for
Heavy: v22 Medium: AW149(if a naval variant existed) Light: Wildcat Attack: Apache
To all,
I posted this in the rebirth of the twin otter thread but i think it has some relevance here. After reading the comments regarding AEW. I was wondering if we could do a poor man’s E-2C Hawkeye, using the new Twin Otter? Could we mount the SearchWater radar underneath or out the back (like the future Merlin ASaC) or on-top?
Strengthen the undercarriage more, add a tailhook and folding wings and maybe uprate the engines more + internal fuel tank. Even if the actual conversion costs 4x that of the twin otter its self. That would mean that each “Sea Otter” would cost $10m (bargain at only $2m a piece) or about £6.5m. We could also have a COD version.
So what do you guys think? Is it possible and if it is, is it worth it?
Pab – I truly understand, but its not really about what we would rather have, we have two QE in building, and allegedly the contractor has the HMG by the balls; so we will be getting them.
And don’t think for a minute that if we sell them straight onto India that the cash would go back into 3 x LPH !
So, as apparently we really, really cant afford the F35 of any version, I ask the assembled crowd again, would 65K tonne LPH be that embarrassing…. really…… ????
Jed
No several US carriers have been used as giant floating helo platforms of late. Space is the biggest asset for any air operations.
Jed
Nope, it would not THAT embarrasing, to my way of thinking it would be less embarrasing than a single half assed carrier.
It could, provided the thing was modified properly proove quite flexible. Given the fact that even the americans are re thinking the ‘Halls of Montezuma’ Iwo Jima style storming ashore stuff helicopter assault may become the norm. Still would need some big helo to lift modern kit – folding rota chinnooks or the Ch53k promised.
But no not that emabarrasing.
PT2
Particulary as should have the facility to carry long term and support a full commando / battle group.
@Pab
We need our helicopters to be NATO compatible, and from what I can tell, that means getting the MI-171 with either RR or Turbomecha engines, and the cockpit that BAE has already designed as part of their tie up with Kazan helicopters. It might well be that once you do that the cost is not all that much different from buying Super Puma’s, Cougars or Merlin’s.
@ Jed
Its to late now but Harriers, and new build Harriers is what I would have endorsed for QE. Personally if we are going to fly fighters off them, then I would go with them in STOBAR configuration with LCA (N) as India intends the LCA (N) as a replacement for their Sea Harrier’s.
I am happy for the QE to turn in to uber-LPH, as long as they a) add ASTER 15, add a couple of extra CIWS systems, additional 30 mm cannons and possibly some turreted 76 mm guns, to make the QE more survivable in the littorals, and b) they invest in sufficient helicopters to make a LPH of that size worthwhile as the only thing more embarrassing than changing our carriers to LPH’s after making a big song and dance about them becoming CATOBAR carriers is to then have a major shortfall in SH due to a lack of helicopter strategy!!!
@ Pab
Nations are still buying submarines. Nations like Brazil aspire to own SSNs. There is a synergistic relationship between the ship “system” and helicopter “system.” Yes Merlin is a Rolls Royce, but we still need its capabilities. It has had its problems but it is one of the few defence assets that we have that works as advertised and is world class. The transport version perhaps is too trick, but in the civi world even vans have air con and CD players these days…
I note there has been talk of ASMs, warfare is about violence. Better have a not so perfect ASM than none at all.
I am still going to use the term AEW as it is nice and short…..
I think the UK is stuck with what it has got so I am going to sit this one out.