The Brimstone missile was originally called the Advanced Anti -Armour Weapon and was designed to meet the 1982 Staff Requirement (Air) 138 for a stand-off weapon to replace the Hunting Engineering BL755 and RBL755 cluster bombs.
Brimstone was thus designed to defeat massed armoured attacks, ostensibly, Warsaw pact forces in Central Europe. The BL755 was an effective weapon but against newer armour its usefulness was questionable. As part of the Options for Change review, funding was ceased but shortly after, the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated a clear need for a fast jet launched anti-armour weapon and the project was resurrected
In 1994 the Staff Requirement (Air) 1238 was issued, known as the Advanced Anti-Armour Weapon (AAAW)
SR(A) 1238 was very demanding, requiring a completely autonomous weapon that could provide an all-weather, day/night system that could defeat all known armour with a generous margin for future growth. Because of the anti-aircraft weapon density in the likely operating environment, the launching aircraft was required to release the weapon from a safe stand-off distance and at either medium or low altitude, whilst flying at supersonic speeds.
As a final requirement, logistics support and maintenance had to be very simple.
Five submissions were received for the AAAW programme; Thorn EMI, Hunting Engineering, Texas Instruments, British Aerospace Dynamics and GEC Marconi. Hunting Engineering and Texas Instruments both proposed a dispenser with guided sub-munitions, the SWAARM and Griffin 38 respectively. Thorn entered a modified version of the BL755 called TAAWS that used rocket boosted sub-munitions to increase the range and British Aerospace Dynamics proposed a modified version of the ASRAAM air to air missile called Typhoon.
The July 1996 winning bid was submitted by GEC Marconi who teamed with Boeing to create the Brimstone missile. GEC Marconi later became part of Alenia Marconi Systems and in turn was absorbed into MBDA Missile Systems.
Given that studies were initiated in 1982 and a system not selected until 1996, a mere 14 years later, the capability gap was significant.
In Service Date was initially predicted to be 2001.
Initial airborne carriage trials were conducted in 1998 and a year later, firing trials were started in the USA, these unarmed tests being concluded a couple of years later in 2001. Further testing continued in the UK including proving the MIL-STD 1760 interface used to transmit data between the missile and a launch aircraft.
The video below shows later live testing;
A 2002 Parliamentary answer revealed;
The advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon project, BRIMSTONE, has approval to spend up to £849 million, but is currently forecast to spend some £809 million
In 2003, technical problems and launch aircraft availability delayed the in service date
The entry into service of the Brimstone, air launched anti-armour weapon has been delayed because of technical factors that have emerged during the development and trials of the missile and its production. A revised date is currently under review.
Brimstone finally entered service with the RAF on the 31st of March 2005, 23 years after the original work on a replacement for the BL755.
A subsequent 2010 Parliamentary answer revealed the development costs of Brimstone and Dual Mode Brimstone
Quentin Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence; Grantham and Stamford, Labour)
The cost of developing the original Brimstone Missile System was £370 million. Dual Mode Seeker (DMS) Brimstone was developed as a variant of the original Brimstone system. Development costs specifically for the DMS variant amounted to about £10 million.
One of Brimstones principal problems was that the world changed around it.
With the Cold War over and the likelihood of massed armour attacks through Germany rather unlikely it was a classic Cold War Dinosaur.
Still, it was a bloody clever one.
Design
Although Brimstone has a common design root as the Hellfire missile it very definitely is NOT a modified Hellfire, with almost no commonality between the two, the guidance fins being the only common component. The G loading, surface friction and speeds involved with supersonic launch made the engineering much more challenging.
The rocket motor accelerates to supersonic speed in less than three seconds and is designed to boost and coast, increasing range and reducing optical and infra-red signatures, which is important when considering counter fire and the deployment of countermeasures. Launch can be from any altitude, including extreme low altitudes.
Brimstone Flight Profile
A triple launching pylon allows three Brimstones to be carried per position and Tornado was designed to carry 4 such pylons. With three weapons fitted the pylon weighs 235kg.
Brimstone 3 Round Launcher
At 48.5kg and 1.8m long it is a compact weapon and has a tandem warhead to defeat reactive armour. The 300g precursor warhead is tilted at a downward angle to make it more effective against reactive armour and the main warhead weighs 6.2kg.
Brimstone cutaway
Brimstone shipping container
The really clever part of Brimstone though is the guidance system.
Operating at the near optical wavelength of 94 Ghz the radar seeker provides a very high resolution radar image of the target that allows a number of target recognition algorithms to determine whether a return is a tank (and what type) or a tree or building. It is this target recognition that provides the autonomy and allows the launch aircraft to turn away as soon as the weapon is released, leaving the missile to get on with the job. Using a millimetric radar system also confers immunity from target obscuration due to weather and light conditions. The radar has a very narrow emission angle to reduce signatures and the possibility of jamming.
The missile also has a number of attack modes and can exclude low value soft skinned targets, attack vehicle columns in salvos or exclude certain areas. When attacking an area, the multiple missiles in a ripple launch spread out to fly side by side so they impact targets at the same time. If the target is a column the missiles will fly one behind the other, again, all impacting at the same time.
To provide even greater flexibility, the missile can receive targeting information from other platforms, ASTOR for example, proceeding on an indirect flight path to avoid terrain and mask the launch aircraft.
Once launched, the missile is fully autonomous, more on this later.
Part of the development path for the original Brimstone was a different seeker, different warhead and increasing the target set to include maritime targets such as fast attack craft, RIB’s and small patrol vessels. At one stage it was proposed for the Sea Skua replacement. Brimstone was also proposed for the TRACER reconnaissance vehicle programme.
A Brimstone missile costs between £100k and £175k depending on whether development and support costs are included.
At this point it should be clear that Brimstone is a fantastically smart and capable weapon but with a rather limited set of circumstances in which it can be used and so was condemned by many as being wasteful.
Rebirth
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the RAF and FAA found itself without a low yield precision guided weapon with a man in the loop to satisfy stringent rules of engagement. The Maverick missile was available (and used) but it has a large warhead and so an Urgent Operational Requirement was initiated in 2007 that would see earlier plans for an additional guidance system for Brimstone implemented.
This was to be called the Dual Mode Brimstone.
Dual Mode Brimstone
300 first generation Brimstones were converted as part of the UOR (although 500 have now been delivered) with development costs in the order of £10 million.
500th Dual Mode Brimstone
The Dual Mode modifications include a semi active laser (SAL) seeker head and changes to the software but it retains the radar guidance capability.
The first operational sortie with a Dual Mode Brimstone was by the RAF in Iraq on 18th December 2008 and the first operational firing took place in June 2009 in Afghanistan.
Brimstone was used to excellent effect in Operation Ellamy in Libya where it was for many, one of the stand out weapon systems used.
There were a few minor problems with DM Brimstone but they were quickly resolved.
Tornado GR4 Prepares for Takeoff to Support UN Sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya
Since the introduction of DM Brimstone MBDA has also resurrected earlier work on adapting Brimstone for use in the maritime environment. In a privately funded series of trials MBDA have confirmed the ability to use the multiple target engagement radar seeker to target a number of rapidly manoeuvring fast attack craft.
A semi active laser system can only be used for one target at a time which could be a critical issue when dealing with swarming attack craft.
Fitting the three round launcher to helicopters, naval vessels and costal defence sites has also be studied.
Brimstone 2 and SPEAR
In 2011 Dual Mode Brimstone was selected as the basis for the Selected Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Capability 2 requirement.
Selected Precision Effects at Range, or SPEAR, is an RAF programme that is part of the 2010 Team Complex Weapons enabling contract that comprises a number of requirements and partners including Thales, MBDA and Roxel among others.
The programmes are;
Fire Shadow Loitering Munition for the Royal Artillery which is expected to begin trials in Afghanistan this year
Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) is a joint programme with the French for Anti Navire Léger. FASGW (H)/ANL that is expected to arm the Royal Navy’s AW159 Lynx Wildcat helicopter and the French Navy’s NH90 and Panther helicopters.
Selected Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR). SPEAR Capability 2 is a development of the Brimstone Dual Mode Urgent Operational Requirement and SPEAR Capability 3 is a longer range and heavier weapon
Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Light), being developed by Thales Air Defence under the AP to arm the Royal Navy’s AW159 Lynx Wildcat helicopter.
Future Local Area Air Defence System/Common Anti Air Modular Missile has been recently confirmed as armament for the Type 23 frigate and subsequently, called Sea Ceptor, the Type 26. It will also meet the FLAADS (Land) requirement to replace Rapier.
Storm Shadow Capability Enhancement Programme. A joint UK/French joint programme to enhance the Storm Shadow and SCALP cruise missiles
SPEAR Capability 2 is a development of the Dual Mode Brimstone introduced as an Urgent Operational Requirement in 2008. Work for the Block 1 requirement commenced a few years ago but the latest variant will be introduced into service in 2013 as Brimstone 2, this time, into the core equipment programme.
Improvements are said to include an insensitive rocket motor and warhead, longer range, better accuracy, a modular airframe and software enhancements.
The modular design will also improve access to critical components for easier maintenance.
It is hoped of course that this latest development will improve export potential and Brimstone is destined for integration with Typhoon and the Joint Combat Aircraft, both of which should improve its export potential a great deal.
Brimstone on Typhoon
It would be good to see Brimstone 2 integrated with Wildcat and who knows, perhaps one day, it will be used as a Swingfire replacement in the land environment.
Mark and Topman
Very interesting info on the Typhoon. Although I think we need to ask significant questions about why the airframes which have only been used in combat once have been so pushed. If aircraft are going to cost £ 100 million a piece then I think the RAF needs to come up with new doctorine about their use. We just simply cannot afford the sam e atrition rates in aircraft that we had in the past.
i think mark covered it above. The reason the life is being consumed faster than thought is because the numbers in service aren’t keeping to the same as planned, however the taskings they are given are broadly the same. There’s no real way to stop what happened. What doctorine change are you thinking of?
Topman
I am not sure topman. I presume the air frames have been over used with training and providing QRA for the UK and FI. I get that tranche 2 airframes were diverted to Saudi and thats not the RAF’s fault. However how much of the usage of the airframes was really neccesary. If they will only last 6,000 hours and they cost £ 125 million each we really need to rationalise every single hour they are used. That may mean more simulator time for pilots or more traing hours in different aircraft such as Hawk i am not sure but eating up aircraft of this price in such a short time period can’t be sustainable.
well they were used to meet the taskings as set. It’s not ideal but the hours aren’t just flown off for little reason. The req is set by 1 group the sqns have latitude but not enough to burn up hours as they please. Possibly if it was built in from the beginning bit late now.
@ Topman Agreed ther eis little that can be done now. Just another one to add to the cluster f**k that is MOD procurment.
Martin if you build additional fatigue life in from the begining the price tends to go up and takes longer to certify, typhoon is still clearing its fatigue life at present it’s only cleared to 4000hrs as it requires 3 hours in the ground test rig to clear 1 hour in flight. Typhoon will clear around 2014-5 the 6000 hrs life. The 6000 hours is not uncommon superhornet and rafale have the same fatigue life as typhoon.
Its reported some issues have arisen going from anolog hawks to digital typhoons and that’s were hawk 2 and it’s simulated radar and weapons cability come in to reduce training in Sqn service saving hours on typhoon. F35 is a 8000 hrs airframe for this purpose. This can of course be increased once in service if your willing to pay for it but it may not be economical it’s all depends what they find in the ground rig
Real time training has already been cut significantly for Typhoon pilots with more emphasis on the sim. One of the issues is having lots of pilots and not that many aircraft and so they get used a lot.
Also, the Tranche 1s are been run very hard in the build up, but relatively few hours are being expended on the Tranche 2 aircraft. Bear in mind that Tornado F3 was withdrawn early and so Typhoon now has to cover QRA North, South and FI.
Solution, gradual draw down of pilot numbers, which is probably a better idea than sacking the lot of them when a type goes out of service.
The saga continues:
- “Typhoon will clear around 2014-5 the 6000 hrs life”
- “Tranche 1s are been run very hard in the build up, but relatively few hours are being expended on the Tranche 2 aircraft”
Good, run them to the ground in training and QRA, save the later ones so that upgrades to them will have time to pay back
=> sufficiently large pilot pool converted
+ by 2014/15 know where the story with F-35 C&B is going (I mean, in a definitive way)
=> pace the 96 Tornados accordingly (for withdrawal;2024 was planned initially and rationing hours within the fleet will help to keep some ‘newer’ than others)
Other than the B vs C and being definitive about total FJ numbers past the middle of this decade, isn’t the rest “the official story” too?
would be tricky to do acc amongst the hardest worked aircraft would be the twin stickers. What do you do when they are life ex with no new money? And you’ve run them into the ground with a large pool of pilots how will they all be kept upto date when you’ve run them into the ground? You’ve also got fleet within fleet issues.
Hi Topman,
When is the 160 due to be reached (delivery schedule?), before going down to 107?
- our discussion depends very much on the cross-over of ‘the new’ coming in, before or during 2014/15
-2015 as a date for Meteor is not of consequence, but having AESAs production line -fitted, rather than retrofitted, can be more so
-again, doing SS & conformal tanks to be equally capable as the Tornado by the time of the latter’s retirement should be fine as a retrofit?
Acc the 2014/15 I spoke of is when the typhoon ground rig clears typhoon to its design life not when the jets reach that limit. The jets should reach that point about 18month later and end service.. The conversion point is interesting a system I haven’t yet heard talk of transferring to typhoon is raptor pods which I would hope is sooner rather than later.
I’m not that upto date on delivery dates, my guess would be 2013, although mark would probably know more.
AESA I would think would be 2014 at the very earliest.
SS is a role item so it’s a matter of the normal trials procedure with 17 Sqn. Conformal tanks is something I see often online, I’m not so how likely it is to be done. It would need a trip back to Warton for that tied in the a minor/major servicing no doubt. Costs would decide that, if they did get CFTs I wouldn’t bet on them for all. How much structural work could be harder than thought, along with CoG changes and changes to the FbW computers, would be bigger than most think.
@ArmChairCivy
160 aircraft is the total fleet number including replacement aircraft. 107 is the number that will be in service. Aircraft will be rotated into and out of service in order to harmonise the number of hours across the fleet.
Acc
Pre sdsr tranche 3a was due for delivery between 2013-2016. That was when a fleet of 160 was to be available prior to tranche 1 removal from service about 3 years later. The production rate was slowed not sure of new timings or if the Oman deal will have an impact but I suspect it might. Asea most likely post 2015 the Germans have provided some funding in this area.
‘Asea most likely post 2015′
My thoughts are similar there’s some more work yet to be done.
‘the Germans have provided some funding in this area.’
Was that through NETMA? From what I can see it’s been nearly all UK funding for this. Is this very recent, how much was the funding?
Topman
I’m guessing it prob was,they contributed a limited amount for some testing think it was a fig leaf for the signifant and rapid downsizing of there tornado force.
Hi Hannay,
I realise this is done “Aircraft will be rotated into and out of service in order to harmonise the number of hours across the fleet.”
My thoughts are directed at 2014/15 plus 18 mnths, whatever that makes as a date, but anyway at the end of 2015 the remaining T1 hours will be known with certainty and the merry-go-round is only within the 107 from there onwards.
Brings us almost to the Plan B thread:the other show on the side is the bringing the F-35s to the level of 12 FE@R, whatever that makes (between 20 and 30 initial purchase)and from *that point* onwards possibly a rapid draw-down of the Tornado fleet.
What makes this very inconvenient (budget constraints aside)is that both on the T1 side and the F-35 side information is likely to be certain only by the point in time at which the multi-year Team Tornado agreements have to be renewed/ scaled back/ terminated.
I am sure we are not in a hurry to take delivery of the remaining Tiffies committed to, but the schedule is calculated rather in reverse: to keep the line ticking, what is the minimum rate (leaving speculation about export deals aside)?
This missiles sounds like a possible replacement for the failed NLOS missile that was to have armed the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship since it apparently has capabilities against both shore targets and the proverbial Iranian “swarm” of small craft.
My longer comment disappeared?
Just wondering: withou the benefit of the speed and altitude of the current (FJ) launch platforms, how far would these things go surface launched?
News of further development of a sea launched Brimstone (aka “Sea Spear”, death is too good for some people) at the Farnborough 2012:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/farnborough-2012-mbda-completes-sea-spear-live-fir/
ACC:
With regard to range surface launched, no indication in that report, but estimate between 4.5-8 km based on:
a) how far it will (allegedly) go when launched from altitude (12-20+km depending on how high and how fast), and applying a fudge factor of ~37%, which is about right from my reading on missiles’ aerodynamics, and
b) correlates with open source info about the Griffin missile (15km for the “B” at altitude and 5.5km ground launched respectively). I’d go more for the 4.5km range myself.
Back of fag packet though really and pinch of salt please.
Hi Ant, great news!
“estimate between 4.5-8 km”
- needs to be over 5 km to beat what the FIACs themselves are carrying
Lasing semi-submersibles may not work so well, but the millimetric homing should pick them up from wave clutter (bigger such radars picked up camouflaged tanks at 20km in not-too-dense vegetation in trials done in Europe)
“Imagine if the RN decided to scrap the first batch of frigates because it could not put the new toys it wanted on them after 10 years”. Martin – we call that the T22 Batch 1 and HMS Ships Norfolk & Marlborough as well. Although at least they were sold, getting some revenue.
As for Brimstone, before we all get carried away with the “marinisation” bit, perhaps we ought to ask why it wasn’t “marinised” in the first place? Why did SR(A)1238 not specify use aboard Maritime aircraft or stowage aboard ship? Was there no plan to use it on GR5s? Surely all air-launched weapons should be “Joint”?
Last I heard, there were some “interesting” EMC issues to be addressed with Brimstone in a maritime environment and I note that there is still no clearance to carry it aboard ship. I do hope that these issues are being addressed, but from the release I suspect they’re just playing with the targetting software.
NaB, I agree.
There is far too much of this nonsense, one of my favourite hobby horses is how many 30mm cannons the MoD has in service
Going back a few years, why wasn’t Rapier used at Sea, why wasn’t Sea Wolf used on Land, why did we have Sea Eagle in the air and Exocet at sea?
Am sure there are many many good reasons but are they good enough, really?
Yes I agree the big advantage of Brimstone should be the dual IR/mmWave seeker. Interesting point about semi-submersibles, thank you. LMM and Griffin are both dual IR/laser.
I guess the guidance/multiple launch and warhead are comparatively more useful too.
On the other hand, the supersonic speed and not-so-slim form factor will dramatically reduce range for a sea-level launch. Speed is good for air targets, but range for floaty ones I suppose. The missile is quite modular though, and perhaps a longer engine/fuel booster section could be plugged in easily enough, in a similar way to the Aster30 has a bigger booster but os otherwise the same as an Aster15. Slightly defeats the point of a cost-effective conversion though. Hope i’m wrong on the range calc, but at least FAIC only get one shot!
“As for Brimstone, before we all get carried away with the “marinisation” bit, perhaps we ought to ask why it wasn’t “marinised” in the first place?”
The only thing I could think of is if the RAF asked for cash to help fund it and were told to sod off (because of Maverick)?
NaB/TD
Re: Last I heard, there were some “interesting” EMC issues to be addressed
You are obviously much better informed than me!
Is ECM clutter at sea why the small missiles thus selected (LMM and Griffin) are IR/Laser seekers only?
Re: why wasn’t Rapier used at Sea, why wasn’t Sea Wolf used on Land, etc
Good points. We will shortly have CAMM sensibly across land sea and air. Modular and ISO-able. So no place for Brimstone then? In which case why LMM either, does it have a niche really?
TD
No, they’re not good enough. Hence my assertion on the Dark Side that all tactical aircraft and air-launched weapons should be spec’d for maritime use.
I will agree with Topman that there may be some cost/performance trade-offs to be made, but exemption from the maritime requirement ought only to be under exceptional grounds. Generally if you specify the requirement from the off, the cost penalties are reduced and are certainly less than either running two systems in parallel or re-engineering the system to meet additional requirements.
Merlin HC3 is a classic case. What part of the requirement led to abandoning the basic model 410 amphibious version for the model 411 RAF version? Obviously it’s weight because the weight is so tight even the external tie down points were removed from the HC3, but the question is what did that buy? 2 pax? 50nm range? Was it worth it? I agree that many in the RAF probably wnated more Wokkas than anything else to replace the Wessex HC2, but Merlin still represents an increase over what the Wessie could do.
Chris
I don’t recall Maverick being cleared for SHAR if that’s where you’re going, nor the RN funding it.
Ant. EMC, not ECM……
Next question is of course, what platform to launch from (FJs are in the picture, helo version deferred, so talking about surface vessels)
-requirements: 1. very fast so that can be vectored towards the threat axis, and then still make use of the range advantage,possibly in confined waters, 2. immune to mines that may have been laid in advance by minisubs, in preparation for the swarm attack ambush
- answer that comes to mind: a hovercraft that can dock like an LCAC, but does not need to be that big
- “innovations [that we have made; see source for this] in recent years including the LCAC Deep Skirt, the low-profile thrusters on the 74-knot
Finnish ACV combatant, and the advanced lift-air supply fans for two classes of Norwegian Surface Effect Ships(SES)” quoted from http://www.cdi-gs.com/Media/newsletter27.pdf
Cheap as chips (compared to FJs)
@ NAB
I’m just trying to think of possibilities. Perhaps if nothing like Maverick was used on the Carriers then the assumption was made that nothing like Brimstone would be needed either?
I once thought DNA stood for National Dyslexic Association.
brimstone wasn’t ok’d for naval use as there was no demand or requirement to. Look at the timeline of development no one can say it was a clear opportunity missed. How many short range (for a ship) anti tank missiles have been put on ships? And how many are/have been crying out for one? @nab i would say the army got it right with regards to merlin. That’s not to say that should always be the way, but equally we should carefully consider the cost and performance penalties of navalising equipment.
Well, just throwing is out there, but given the different numbers ordered, maybe it IS cheaper to shave £1 off each brimstone and add £100 to each Sea Brimstone?
RE ” How many short range (for a ship) anti tank missiles have been put on ships?”
- I can only think of Hellfires on Norway’s CB90s (and there, coast and deep water mix in an unique way; the Kiwis don’t really have a threat of someone sailing up their fjords with an invasion fleet)
Talking about Norway: their Skjoeld Class would be an ideal carrier for this anti-swarm missile
- currently they have NSM against much bigger ships (and hence “only” eight onboarded)
USN borrowed a Skjoeld for a year, for trials, when the Streetfighter concept was ‘hot’
- then it all went the LCS way
- a Skjold < 300 tonnes, a Visby 3 times that whereas an LCS is 10 times
@ACC
Think you’re slightly missing the point, this isn’t really for dedicated platforms, at least not at this stage. The reason why MoD have rushed it through was part of the general preparations for attacking Iran – this give a really useful capability for every Tornado of the RAF and Saudi, that can be deployed by the end of the year if need be. They didn’t do the trial from a Tornado just because it was convenient, it was because that is the most likely real-world option in the near term.
Obviously MBDA would love the USN to deploy it from an LCS module but that ship has probably sailed with the USN choosing Griffin as the temporary replacement for the failed NLOS-LS. Ditto the USAF – their latest plan seems to be to bodge the seeker from SDB-II onto Hellfire. The USMC might bite, especially if they needed something sooner rather than later, given how much work went into getting Brimstone onto the GR9.
Incidentally in an alternate reality I reckon a hypothetical Sea Harrier FA3 would have had Brimstone integrated in around August 2011 – the A2G stuff would have been on the “nice to have” list when the Sea Harrier had its “GR9″/JUMP upgrades in the late noughties, and would have been accelerated in time to make a late appearance in Libya, perhaps when the first carrier on scene was relieved.
In terms of ships, it’s really about retrofitting rather than building some new craft that we don’t have the money to do. Think in terms of squeezing in a 6-pack anywhere that you could put a RAM launcher or Phalanx.
People are missing the point. I’m not suggesting we mount ATGW on ships. All I’m asking is why ATGW are not designed from the off to be dropped from naval aircraft and therefore qualified to be stored in naval magazines.
The US do it right – pretty much every air-launched weapon includes teh ability to be stowed aboard ship and dropped from USN/USMC aircraft. Time we learned……
Perhaps with the purchase of American jets (F35) we’ll end up with our naval ordnance capability similar to that of our land based aircraft anyway.
I guess what we’ve had stems from the “them and us” attitude between FAA and RAF? Did it exist when we were operating Phantoms and Buccaneer?
Can anyone help me with these two questions please?
1) How far has partial marinisation of Apache taken it towards the cost of a Sea Cobra, and, after NaB, should we have gone for these straight out instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_AH-1_SuperCobra
2) What is the “The successor to Brimstone, the 50kg class Spear Capability 2 Block 3 missile”: is it Brimstone 2 or something else?
see: the Defence Secretary’s answer to this week’s Parliamentary Questions:
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) when he plans that the Apache helicopter will be upgraded to utilise the Brimstone missile system;
(2) what plans he has to marinise the Apache helicopter;
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/07/parliamentary-answers-week-commencing-9th-july-2012/
A: “The Apache is currently armed with variants of the Hellfire missile which are due to go out of service in 2021-22. The MOD will look at various options as a replacement to this capability. The successor to Brimstone, the 50kg class Spear Capability 2 Block 3 missile, will be one of the options considered as a replacement.”
Ant, we looked at the Cobra at the same time as Apache
Because it is USMC it is designed for shipboard use with a low maintenance overhead one might argue with the benefit of hindsight that we should have chose that instead
Ah. Sorry I missed that. I’ll go and look.
Cheers.
“All I’m asking is why ATGW are not designed from the off to be dropped from naval aircraft and therefore qualified to be stored in naval magazines?”
If you’re not planning to use them on ship based aircraft then why bother? You’re adding expense to the process for something you don’t plan on using. If they’re going to be dropped from naval aircraft then fine, but if you’re expecting to do that then it’s just a waste of money.
Not a Boffin,
Regarding the Merlin your theory is arse about face. Because the Merlin was designed for naval use and the RAF got both the Engines and Gearbox (amongst other bits, the ramp!!!) as specced for the Navy IS why it is so poor hot and high and less effective than it should be.
If the Merlin had been specced for the RAF from the start it would be far more capable, although not immune from all the various issues it faces now (too complicated, but that is endemic of modern military aircraft).
Hi El Sid,
Where do you think I got this scenario from
” still make use of the range advantage,possibly in confined waters, 2. immune to mines that may have been laid in advance by minisubs, in preparation for the swarm attack ambush”
- just don’t always want to name names, and come across as a warmonger
- how many countries use such minisubs? 3 or 4; Russia, N. Korea and Iran, maybe China
Key word here is ambush: If Tornado in A-stan arrives on average in 30 mins, will they be much quicker around and above Hormuz? If it is down to having a continuous patrol, over an extended period, how many will we have to deploy just for this single purpose? Libya scale – but can’t do it by truck convoys this time.
As long as one makes sure they can dock at sea (endurance between half a day and two days), I say “cheap as chips” in comparison.
- now, because combat ACVs are a rarity, one can say it is not a good idea. Horses for courses, I say. Innovation not forbidden.
I am aware that there is no budget, nor time (this one reveals my real view of the where the world is going to), but just to keep the blogging interesting…
Ant & TD, RE “Because it is USMC it is designed for shipboard use”
USMC undertook two serious studies about adapting Apache, and the conclusions were negative (I haven’t saved the links). These were feasibility studies, so they ignored the fact that in maintenance there is a high commonality achievable between their utility helo and Cobra. So by the time the decision had to be taken, it was a no brainer.
Wibble – it wasn’t a theory. But fair point, why didn’t the Navy spec hot and high performance? It’s not as if the idea of Merlin as a Junglie was never thought of. That would almost certainly have demanded more engine power, which would have driven a fix to the basic problem – the box – and generated a more capable aircraft.
There are some cardinal point specifications (hot n high, arctic, maritime, all-weather) given the amount of kit we buy and where we operate that need applying to all procurements.
AAC,
You have to remember that the USMC is the bastard child of the DOD and generally does not get the aircraft it wants, or gets older versions. The fact that they use their Hueys as gunships says it all really, they are desperate! The Apache is far more capable than the Cobra, better range, better payload, better ISTAR capability, better weapons system etc. If the USMC could afford it they would have Apaches, no question. In fact they would probably happily swap the Ospery for it.
Wibble,
Normally it is not seen like that ” is the bastard child of the DOD and generally does not get the aircraft it wants, or gets older versions” but in this case there is some truth to it.
Namely, they had a total aviation program confirmed, and as everything was running over, they had to protect the F35 (B!) and Osprey purchase… so they got the Cobras by re-manufacturing the old ones. Actually the result is very good, they can swap streaming video directly (from fast jets, drones…) and go in and prosecute, rather than do a pass first and get everything the Bad Guys have trained at them on the second pass
Wibble, NaB, Merlin wasn’t specced for hot and high because it was conceived for open ocean ASW and low altitude performance, not troop lifting in the desert. RAF were sold a kipper when they opted for Green Merlin. Plus the first Merlin prototype flew in 1987 (according to WikiTruth) so hot and high operations hadn’t even been thought of when the aircraft was ordered.
@Ant
Spear Capability 2 means the member of the Brimstone family that looks like the current Brimstone as opposed to the fancy long-range version. Whether the one that is relevant in 2021 is called Brimstone 2, Brimstone 3 or Brimstone 2.7, it’ll look like the current DM Brimstone.
@Simon and others
I think people are overplaying the FAA vs RAF thing in this particular respect. The fact is that Brimstone was originally designed for the Fulda Gap, somewhere that Sea Harrier would never have been seen. Given the limited numbers of aircraft you could fit on the Invincibles, Sea Harrier had its hands full doing fleet defence with a secondary role that was more “strategic” A2G, CAS got left to the RAF. So giving Sea Harrier Maverick would not be quite as pointless as putting Maverick on Tornado F3, but it wasn’t a priority back in 1996. But the fact remains that there was a plan to have an IM version of Brimstone flying on Harrier by 2009, which then slipped back and it didn’t quite happen before the Harriers were retired. So it’s hard to argue that there’s some great conspiracy going on – once Brimstone had become dual-mode, giving it a use beyond Fulda, then it was going to sea.
@ACC
As you say, timing is part of it, you fight with what you’ve got – and it’s interesting that the US and Israel now seem to be waiting until JASSM-ER and MALD-J are in the inventory before going for Iran, which implies nothing will happen until early next year. But Brimstone from Tornado at least gives us the ability to provide overwatch patrols for military taskgroups going through Hormuz. It costs ££££s in fuel and airframes, but it is a quick and dirty solution to that problem, which you could only do for warships. Phase II would probably be truck-mounted launchers around Hormuz itself – they wouldn’t really have the range to cover it properly but again it’s a quick and dirty solution that means you wouldn’t have to worry about navalisation of the missiles. Then you can start thinking about putting them on oil platforms and on existing small warships, even bolt a container onto an oil tanker. Only then do you need to think about new ships – and for the Gulf, why not follow Iran and put them onto Bladerunner 51′s?