DSEI News and Updates

102 thoughts on “DSEI News and Updates”

1. ArmChairCivvy September 13, 2011 at 9:35 am

   I was expecting some UK announcement around this one (Falcon)
   “compliant with the JTRS Software Communications Architecture and adheres to the DoD’s open-standards approach to radio technology.

   SRW and WNW will enable the radio to move more information – voice, video, data and images – across a battlefield network in real time. The radio will be compatible with cutting edge technologies such as sensors, UAVs and robots designed to use SRW and WNW.” extracted from http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDA&i=4307574
   - whereas I’ve only seen, so far, a UK win announcement by ITT to enhance Bowman component systems further
2. ArmChairCivvy September 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

   I don’t know why NG Fire Scout and RUAG Ranger are side by side, but great piccie for the sizes of them
   http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?ItemID=41729
3. Jed September 13, 2011 at 1:53 pm

   Howabout “Maritime” Fire Shadow, complete with jury rigged flight deck launcher……

   http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a97f135e4-b749-4a70-a948-969f130ef764
4. ArmChairCivvy September 13, 2011 at 2:31 pm

   Makes more sense to me than the already ordered land model ” the weapon offers “stand-off capability for the precision attack of moving land targets in complex littoral scenarios.”
   The main difference appear to be the ship-deck launcher
   - looks like it is hauled up to the deck by slaves, and then the chains are borrowed for the launch cycle… what a weird graphic
5. Gabriele September 13, 2011 at 2:41 pm

   “looks like it is hauled up to the deck by slaves, and then the chains are borrowed for the launch cycle… what a weird graphic”

   Yeah, but at least it means no serious modifications are needed.
   Money saved.

   I’m trying to follow and gather up all the news releases of interest from DSEI in here myself:
   http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/09/dsei-news.html
6. paul g September 13, 2011 at 3:22 pm

   “wildcat to make static appearance” start as you mean to go on then!!
7. Mark September 13, 2011 at 6:16 pm

   UK carrier to receive second EMALS production shipset, Fox confirms

   http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065930314
8. Mark September 13, 2011 at 7:48 pm

   The Gazelle back to the future for the RN

   http://www.qinetiq.com/news/PressReleases/Pages/QinetiQ-and-Northrop-Grumman-produce-novel,-proven-and-cost-effective-VTUAS-solution-for-Royal-Navy.aspx
9. Jed September 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm

   FireScout-Gazelle – no thanks !

   As Gabby already commented on his blog, too big, no tail fold, not folding rotors…..

   Why pay for adding all this (necessary) conversion, just buy the “off the shelf” MQ8B version !
10. Think Defence September 13, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Slightly off topic but whilst we are talking about RN unmanned rotary systems allow me to introduce the future

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4db06748-ba1f-42c6-975e-1d6aefcc0401

    How do I know its the future?

    Its from Agusta Westland

    Job jobbed!
11. Mark September 13, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    This is bae systems update on type 26 but also has other briefings for those interested

    http://www.baesystems-dsei2011.co.uk/News/Global-Combat-Ship-Type26
12. ArmChairCivvy September 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    On ships, other than flat tops of any description, the UAVs (add an “r”) have the edge because of endurance and smaller foot print/ take-up of hangar space (have more, and rotate them on station!)
    - anything that won’t tick these boxes is just a fad
13. ArmChairCivvy September 13, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Thanks Mark,

    “Thursday, 15 September
    09.30 CVR(T) Mk2″
14. Gabriele September 13, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    “Why pay for adding all this (necessary) conversion, just buy the “off the shelf” MQ8B version !”

    For the same reasons why the US Navy is paying to convert 28 helicopters into Fire-X drones: the Fire Scout is short legged and seriously limited in payload and sensors.
    It is new, and it is already short of much of what the Navy wants from it, the US Army also does not deem it adequate… Wonderful as it is, the Fire Scout is not the automatic correct answer.

    But i’d want whatever drone comes out of this to fit in the hangar of Type 26, if not Type 23, together with a Merlin or Wildcat.

    If i gain a drone, but lose the chopper, i make a very, very, very bad choice.

    And the Westland proposal seems to have the same issues of the Gazelle one. They are issues to be corrected, otherwise usefulness of the drone will be very limited.
15. Mark September 13, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    I read it as a proof of sensor and operator concept on a tried, tested and simple a/c which we have plenty off and prob a relatively short deign to field time. While they develop a more appropriate airframe over the next few years while de risking the software
16. Tubby September 13, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Just watching the presentation on T26, rather interesting – while the animations showed T26 with ASuM’s there was no mention of them when they outlined the weapon systems (and the slide was a bit to blurry to read all of it), nor did they show torpedo’s in the presentation or the animation. My guess is the main VLS will include ASROC or equivalent for ASW but it was not clear to me if any ASuW capability will be built into T26 – does anyone know what the plan is given that Harpoon will be out of service just as T26 comes into service?

    They also made it clear that there will likely be a competition for a new medium gun so it sounds like re-cycling Mk 8′s has been ruled out.
17. paul g September 13, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    oh no, earlier in the week read an article which included the words springer 2 gabriele’s link states they’re going to stick with it; arrrgh! although a google of springer 2 states four wheel drive, bigger wheels and 1.2 tonne load. I just think they fleeced the army first time round.
18. ArmChairCivvy September 13, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Hi Tubby,

    He was pretty clear about ” a competition for a new medium gun so it sounds like re-cycling Mk 8′s has been ruled out” there being nowhere else to go for the gun other than the Americans and the Italians.

    He also mentioned the design team having two different (from UK) nationalities on it… need not be Brazil/ India/ Australia; I have been wondering who Saab are planning the 1.000km version of RBS15 for (India already have their Brahmos, whereas Australian ships have a lot of Saab kit on them). And should Gripen go anywhere in Brazil’s fighter competition, then Gripen NG intermediate and rear fuselages, wings and main landing gear doors (already being developed there)would be sole sourced from Brazil
    - and who is it that holds a 20% interest in Gripen International; it’s BAE who leads the T26 consortium
19. Jed September 14, 2011 at 1:25 am

    Gabriele

    “the MQ8B is not automatically the right answer” _ I never said it was, because it depends what the question is…..

    US Navy has plenty of hanger space to fly drone variants of the Jet Ranger, as you yourself have said an VTOL UAV for the RN MUST fit in a hanger ALONGSIDE a Wildcat or a Merlin – so Gazelle ain’t it without a stupid amount of expenditure. Camcopter, Skeldar, A160 Hummingbird, plenty of answers out there already, in varying sizes, with varying degrees of payload and endurance.

    I can’t see a tail fold line in that lovely SW4 graphic either……
20. Jed September 14, 2011 at 1:39 am

    T26 briefing “it’s going to look fairly right next to the Type 45 at Portsmouth”

    Well that’s fine then, having only 19 warships won’t matter as long as they look good alongside – I just vomited on my computer desk
21. Jed September 14, 2011 at 1:53 am

    T26 briefing – oh my god it gets worse ! So apparently it’s “no longer about exports, but about international partnerships”which strangely enough fits in so nicely with BAe’s “multi-national” strategy….. so what exactly is the point of a national strategy to retain “complex warship design” skills as we are not looking for “exports” just a few partners – oy vay, tell me how this is not wasting millions of tax payers pounds and 300 peoples time in designing something that looks like it might be tiny smidgen more advanced than a FREMM ??? Oh oh more vomiting…….
22. Jed September 14, 2011 at 2:00 am

    Ocelot WMIK :

    http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ocelot_sf.jpg
23. Chris.B. September 14, 2011 at 8:44 am

    *Hands Jed a tissue

    There you go fella.

    The briefing didn’t seem to solve much for me. It just seemed like a regurgitation (whey!) of everything we’ve already heard. I honestly don’t know why they really bothered.

    To me the design just seems to be Type 45, but without the long range search radar, swapping in Artisan for SAMPSON, and then adding a small craft dock at the back.

    Or “pointless” as it would otherwise be known. A few other things that turned my eye;

    - The mention of how much size is added to just by a relatively minor uplift in personnel.

    - All the talk about growth on the bridge etc, and how stuff is designed to fit into a specific space which may prove problematic in the future, to which my immediate thought was “aren’t computers and other wizadry supposed to get smaller as time passes, not bigger?”

    - The international partners bit was quite surprising. He was literally sounded like he was pleading people to come and join the project and provide funds etc. That was disconcerting.

    I think we might be headed for another F*** up.
24. Tubby September 14, 2011 at 8:46 am

    “…tell me how this is not wasting millions of tax payers pounds and 300 peoples time in designing something that looks like it might be tiny smidgen more advanced than a FREMM ??? Oh oh more vomiting……”

    The answer is obvious, we spending millions so that BAe could discover that you can, due to advances in automatic stabilisation, have bunks pointing different directions, this with over amazing discoveries make you want to cheer on the UK’s sovereign ship building industry!

    To be honest the guy presenting it was one of the most boring speakers I have ever seen so we likely all missed key points, and to set the bench mark I have been at an academic conference on carbon where one of the keynote speaker was Russian with minimal English and the personality of tea bag and I was hung over when he delivered the early morning plenary session!

    Still l liked the bit where it was revealed that they had discovered that the Coastguard knew more about small boats being loaded to and from ships than the RN and they were going to incorporate this knowledge into T26.

    In other news ARTISAN is dead on schedule, as they announced yesterday that tracking trials commenced on the Isle of Wight:

    http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_111813102928.html
25. Tubby September 14, 2011 at 8:56 am

    Hi ACC,

    I must admit I drifted off in the last few minutes of the video on international partnering, which I presume is the route we are going due to the fact that those countries who just buy a new ship want something smaller than T26 (and there are already good designs out there filling this niche) and those countries who need something in the size range of T26 want knowledge transfer as they intend in the medium term to become exporters of military ships not importers.

    I guess the medium calibre gun will be a straight up fight between a new build of BAE Mk 45′s against the Oto Breda 127/54 compact, with a possible wild card of the French Modele 100 TR which with a calibre of 100 mm is still a medium calibre gun I think?
26. ArmChairCivvy September 14, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Hi Tubby,

    I think Tony made a comment on some other thread that this one “with a possible wild card of the French Modele 100 TR which with a calibre of 100 mm is still a medium calibre gun I think?” is starting to go out
    - leaves two alternatives, the ones mentioned, also explicitly mentioned by the BAE guy (note: no UK alternative, if anyone wants to remember the 155mm)
    - interestingly, the Russians seem to be moving to 130mm while the Chinese stick with the 100mm (sources a bit, if not lacking, at least lagging on that front)
27. Gabriele September 14, 2011 at 10:28 am

    “o apparently it’s “no longer about exports, but about international partnerships”which strangely enough fits in so nicely with BAe’s “multi-national” strategy….. so what exactly is the point of a national strategy to retain “complex warship design” skills as we are not looking for “exports” just a few partners”

    Jed, quite frankly, this is no surprise.
    Most of the nations interested and with a requirement that Type 26 could fill will want to build the ships in their own yards. British industry will have a part to play in this, and if we are very, very lucky perhaps one or two vessels, the first ones, might be built in the UK…

    But if you were expecting to build Type 26 on the Clyde and then sell them to India or Brazil or Canada or Australia or New Zealand, sorry, but you were totally dreaming.
    It was always clear, particularly about India, that the ships would be built in partnership, but that the foreign partners would build the ships at home.

    Zero surprise in that.
28. paul g September 14, 2011 at 11:21 am

    @jed, looking at that picture of the fox-a-lot, if i made jackals i’d be nervous!!!
29. ArmChairCivvy September 14, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Hi paul g,

    I love the product, but two ‘buts’
    1. That can’t be the recce version (about 100 degree coverage, as opposed to 360, for the only MG)
    2. Currently, in service with British Forces, there are over 260 Jackal 2, 200 Jackal 1 and over 70 Coyote vehicles.

    Assume 6 X Light Sqn in the BRR’s (one TA) = How many would be needed?
    - even if you ignore Jackal 1′s and factor some in for bn-level recce uses, aren’t the numbers enough (so an order for that use unlikely; for other uses troop carrying capacity too limited)?
30. Gabriele September 14, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    “Assume 6 X Light Sqn in the BRR’s (one TA) = How many would be needed?”

    Is it such an heresy to expect Light Role Infantry Battalions to have a number of Fire Support Jackals or Foxhound in their Maneuver Support Companies?

    The lack of tactical mobility and firepower, not to talk about protection, makes the Light Role Battalions horrendously limited in what they can effectively do, and it is more than time to address some of the evident limits.
31. Jed September 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Gabriele

    As your first language is Italian, not English, you did not pick up the nuance that my comment was literally dripping with sarcasm !

    I never expected BAe to building on the Clyde and the sell “exports” to Brazil or anywhere else, which is why I think its all purely about BAe and anything about soverign complex warship design capability is pure BS. We are in the middle of a recession, so howabout instead of spending millions on design studies, we spend a fraction of that on ensuring an existing design can be made to fit our requirements, be it Absalon, FREMM, even T45, whatever, buy the intellectual property, join the consortium and start building them NOW, thus stimulating engineering and manufacturing jobs when the stimulus is actually needed. Plus you get to retire T23 early while it still has re-sale value, and reduce the RN manning budget / bill by early introduction of a type with a smaller crew.

    As for the other BS in the presentation, it is purely staggering – how exactly does the Coastguard do a better job of launching boats in higher sea states than the RN ? Well by launching them down slipways from the land of course, unless he means the US Coast Guard, which actually has frigate sized coast guard cutters with rear boat ramps !

    As for making technology upgrades / refits easier by lifting out modules or lifting off the bridge – well sure it makes it easier, but hey, my first ship went into Chatham dockyard with twin 4.5′s, an AS mortar , a Wasp and 1950′s radar and sonar, and came out with Exocet, SeaWolf, a Lynx, torpedo tubes and what where at the time state of the art sensors (967/968 and T2016, satcom and the RN’s first computer based message handling system – all crammed into a 3,000 tonne 1950′s vintage steam powered hull – and it all worked just fine

    And dont even get me started on ‘thwartships’ bunks, I don’t care how good they say their stabilisers are !!
    Tubby – 100mm might not seem much less than 127mm, but it’s not realy worth much for NGS.
32. ArmChairCivvy September 14, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Hi Gabby, we are onto a good topic here (wonder what heading under Army Future?):

    I was trying to make to points in one (that seldom works):
    - you can’t have a sprinkling of all types across all formations, so which one is better for the light recce squadrons (Jackal 2 or Foxhound xyz, not the one in the piccie -surely?)
    - without picking the winner (the other contestant is still in the dressing room, not in the ring), is it so that any (so far speculative) number of light squadrons already have the kit for them…
    - so, the Foxhounds should go to the good cause you raise, into the formations where they are/ will used anyway?
33. Jed September 14, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    ACC

    All Jackal / Jackal 2 have a design flaw, they sit two of the crew over the front axle – therefore we need to buy lots of Ocelots and leave the bloody Jackal’s in the stan as a leaving pressie for the locals.

    And although its not a great photo, it does look to me like the top weapons mount could have 360 degs coverage ?
34. paul g September 14, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    I’ve studied the photo again, seems they’ve gone for the “arty” shot (as in artistic, not artillery!!!) and if you go up in a straight line from the door steps is that a .50 barrel?
    However to continue the debate, how many of the jackals currently serving will last til 2015? perhaps one idea would be to take the 6×6 (and/or convert the 4×4) for the light MRLS option just enclose the open cab, nice bit of adapt overcome survive!
35. Gabriele September 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    The Foxhound firesupport on the site of Force protection is shown with the passenger GPMG mount, top-ring “heavy” mount for .50 or 40 mm GMG (actually, in the image there’s a M134D Minigun no less XD), another “heavy” mount aiming backwards in the rear, and even a side mount with a machinegun aimed off the flank.
    http://www.forceprotection.net/products/ocelot/

    That photo is tricky.
36. ArmChairCivvy September 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Oh boy,
    the 70 Coyotes surely come in useful for resupply over routes that have already been secured (not talking about A-stan where nothing is secure, but a more conventional scenario).

    All Britains’s beach buggies are now facing early obsolescense when these 7.5 t pieces, all of those from the 460 that make it back, are off-loaded cheaply?
37. Tubby September 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Thanks ACC and Jed, re: 100mm , I was simply thinking that as we are now best buddies with the French we should join whatever programme they have. Had a quick look and all their new ships have a 76mm so what are the French planning on using for NGS?
38. Phil September 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Yes sitting the driver and commander over the front axle gets them killed. And same for the chap in the back if its reversing. At least with Coyote when it reverses the bloke in the back isn’t going to fly through the air.

    Jackal 2 is just about alright for what it does. But it is by no means ideal. There’s hardly any space on the thing, its incredibly tight, there is almost no armour to speak of, the gunner is incredibly exposed but it does the job in Afghan.

    Coyote has a bit more space on the back but barely room for a stretcher really – but again it fills a role in Afghan and is a useful asset to light infantry. I’d be reluctant to use either back here because given some more time a better vehicle can be developed.

    If you want to talk about a game changing vehicle, I give you, the very humble quad and its trailer with the ditch crossing system. That thing saves so much blood sweat and tears its unbelievable. It’s incredibly un-sexy but for light infantry in shit terrain it is a battle winner. It is so versatile that a large number of jobs could be found for it in a more conventional setting also.

    All hail the quad.
39. Think Defence September 14, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    Phil, covered quads and ultra lights a week or two ago

    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/the-future-of-the-british-army-10-wheels-a-less-than-sensible-future-part-2/
40. ArmChairCivvy September 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    Phil,

    I quite agree. Casualty evacuation is a high priority in the ATV use by British army (hence the trailer is a must). Many others use 6-wheeled models that can, without a trailer, do anything up to ATGWs (team has several movers) and 81 mm mortars (again the same, especially because of the weight of the rounds).

    Latest move by the US Army (after using them for 10 years):” In addition to running on JP8, the Patriot Engine™ can operate on emergency fuels including gasoline, JP5 and highway diesel.”
41. Phil September 14, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Ah you talk about Springer. The most pointless vehicle ever invented. It was noisy, shit, lightly armoured, shit, couldn’t carry anything more than a quad could, shit, and that was when it was working, which was for about 4 weeks out of 26.

    The quad was enormously useful in keeping outposts supplied and for rotating troops through them. You could put their bergans on the trailer and they could patrol “light” then and on re-sup runs you could load them up with rations, water, batteries and all sorts of other stuff.

    Also very useful for casualty evacuation as mentioned although ours spent most of their time humping and dumping. It meant we could use organic assets to resupply the outposts rather than having to rely on SH to drop food and supplies in and put those assets at great risk. In short they are very versatile, cheap as chips, reliable, easy to fix, fun to drive, and move quickly when they draw fire and are well liked. They really do make life much, much easier. The ditch crossing kit is a winner too since the Afghans have an alarming tendency to dig massive trenches overnight to irrigate their fields.

    Springer though, did I mention it was shit?
42. paul g September 14, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    sorry phil. That was on behalf of REME who spawned the fuckwit that sold the springer to the MOD. He was ex infantry who transfered to teach mil skills in the corp (so imagine my surprise when reading his bi-og on the company website, that he had in depth knowledge of military vehicle maintainance). it’s a bit suss that his last job in green was procruement (just an observation not an allegation, so my lawyer tells me to say).
43. Phil September 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    I still have the noise it made seared into my brain, a rrrrrrrrurghrrrrrrrrughrrrrrrughrrrrugh coupled with the sound of a rattly, grinding bicycle chain going round and round.

    It was funny on a night patrol when the driver hit the wrong switch and switched on the headlights and not the IR ones! Oh how we laughed. And we laughed when it fell into a ditch too right in front of an insurgent strong hold.

    We should have left it to the Taliban, we’d have heard them coming from Kabul.
44. Gabriele September 14, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    TD will just fall in love with this:

    http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/mil-log/dsei-2011-weatherhaven-unveils-chinook-liftable-container-system/10000/

    Chinook-compatible CONTAINERS!

    Jokes aside, from the limited info the article provides, it sounds like a real smart idea.

    But probably TD will first notice the awesomeness of them being sized to fit inside TEU CONTAINERS.

    : )
45. Mark September 14, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    A question on the quad bike is it proving so useful because it can operate over so many different routes the taleban cant predict were its going and so they cant ied the routes or thats it speed gives surprise or both. I find this genuinely interesting as the only thing ive read about vehicles in afghan is we must get heavy and heavier to counter IEDs and keep everyone safe.

    As for Oscelot this really is looking the real deal and show to create a family from a solid base design, have any been into the field yet? If so and it does what it says it can then if the army doesnt replace its entire fleet below medium weight with them then someone in mod needs shot.
46. Phil September 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    It’s useful because it can get around tracks other vehicles can’t and that can open up options. It can’t get everywhere but with some determination it can get most places. At various points you will choke points but there are drills for dealing with them. It’s useful mainly because it is a simple, reliable and organic cargo vehicle that makes the lives of the infantry much easier. When you have an OP 2k away and there’s no chance of getting a Jackal down the narrow tracks then a quad means you don’t have to expose the infantry to accomplish several long, exhausting supply relays carrying water, food etc in their bergans. They’re obviously vulnerable but they operate with infantry. They’re very useful indeed. And if they break they’re relatively simple to fix.
47. Mark September 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    Thanks Phil so sometimes brains is better than brawn. This should be remembered when we replace the cvrt
48. Think Defence September 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Have a look at the updated link list, above, check out the Oviks one, a reheashed CVR(T)
49. Phil September 14, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Sweat saves blood. Brains save both!
50. Jed September 14, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    OK I give in – which is the Oviks link ?