About The Author

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
mike
January 1, 2014 7:19 pm

TD

Your T45 pics also has them spelling the name of their T45 class… I think the RN is filling in the role of HM Forces Sesame street pretty well ;)

But hey, its them trying to improve their image… their PR is better than people think. I’d say the best currently.

dave haine
January 1, 2014 7:27 pm

@ TD
Oh dear….how very inclusive…..

@ Mark
Compared to who? Charles Saatchie?

dave haine
January 1, 2014 7:30 pm

See:

Thats a good PR picture

Simon257
January 1, 2014 8:02 pm

David Haine, This is better –

But these aren’t bad either..
http://imagik.fr/uploads/12266
http://imagik.fr/uploads/12269

Red Trousers
January 1, 2014 8:27 pm

@TD, re naval PR crap. FFS, it’s getting even more vomit inducing and gay.

Not sure this is a “recommend”, as I don’t associate Clarkson with serious historical analysis. Anyway, he’s doing an hour on WW2 naval convoy PQ-17 tomorrow night (2nd) on BBC2. That was when the Andrew were a proper fighting service.

All Politicians are the Same
January 1, 2014 8:49 pm

I do despair but obviously someone thinks it is working and they must be getting feedback. Not sure what the target Demographic is but it is unlikely to be TD or retired Army Officers :)

I like this one as it shows just how little room there is in an Ops room.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rn_topten/11517881895/

mike
January 1, 2014 8:56 pm

@APATS

lol demographic… looking at the current crop of pics… I do fear for the future of the RN XD

Sorry, couldn’t resist.
That ops room pic is far far more better – proper RN.

Simon257
January 1, 2014 8:57 pm

@ RT

To be fair to Clarkson, the Documentry he did about the St. Nazaire Raid, a few years ago was very good. He was very passionate about it to say the least!

Red Trousers
January 1, 2014 9:13 pm

@ Simon 257,

I’ve got no problem at all with Clarkson, nor certainly with proper serious historical documentaries which I like as well: it’s the combination that slightly boggles the mind.

I shall watch it tomorrow and expect to enjoy it, and I’d hope emerge with new found respect for some human spirit and resilience in godawful conditions. And not emailing home to get pictures of some new sprog.

@ TD, no. A bit bloody younger…! ;)

HurstLlama
January 1, 2014 9:29 pm

I do love the Omanis, they really are a great bunch of people. The very best of the Arabs and yet so delightfully old-fashioned British at the same time. Where else on the planet would the final paragraph of a news item reporting a high level liaison visit begin,

“At the end of the visit, the British guest signed the visitor’s book …”

Gloomy Northern Boy
January 1, 2014 9:38 pm

@apats – absolutely right – the TD back bar might prefer more traditional images of military life, but the GBP very much prefer the fluffy kitten stuff, and they are the intended target for this schmaltz…along with the metropolitan opinion formers who would certainly dismiss our preferred top ten as “prehistoric sexist macho shit” – and consider it in and of itself a compelling reason to abandon any and all Defence expenditure. In that respect the PR people are probably doing a pretty decent job…

And in fairness I should add that the Army did rather more “hardened Squaddies befriend stray puppy and smuggle him home” and “gallant medic saves comrades under fire” than “Trooper Hardman McTough fillets fourteen Taliban with a teaspoon”…and the RAF tend to major on relief operations, not missile strikes.

The purpose of PR is too give the audience a warm inner glow about its subject, not awaken their Inner Spartan and re-invigorate the Martial Virtues of the Race.

GNB

Red Trousers
January 1, 2014 10:20 pm

@GNB,

you may well be right on the demographic, but I worry that it is self-reinforcing. Advertise for metrosexuals, geeks, fat lesbians and kitten huggers and that is what you will get. And that then defines your fighting force.

Craig
January 1, 2014 10:37 pm

@RT

If you haven’t seen it before, you should check out Clarkson’s documentary on the Victoria Cross. It along with his programmes on Operation Chariot and Brunel. Nothing like his ‘act’ on Top Gear.

Gloomy Northern Boy
January 1, 2014 11:52 pm

@RT – Fair up to a point, but I think the more purposeful recruitment material has a rather different feel to the PR fluff…and I’m not sure how important it is other than at the margins; I think those with a genuine interest in HMAF will self-direct towards other information sources (including sites like this, in some cases)…and many will have family and friends connexions to them in any event…

…mind you, I’ve plenty to say about the extent to which this sort of stuff is a symptom of the place going to the dogs (at least at present, and at least in some ways) but that is a whole book not a comment. Perhaps I’ll call it My Struggle…

GNB

Peter
January 2, 2014 12:03 am

I’m getting increasingly interested in the impending lease expiration of Diego Garcia. Since the Americans apparently are less interested in the “special relationship” and want us to have better relations with the EU and less dealings with them, it would be interesting to ask the EU if they would be interested in taking it on as a base.

The EU couldn’t possibly actually use it of course, but hey. They might have a go simply to screw with the US. I think it’d be worth talking about it just to see if we can get a better rent for the place than an agreement that the Americans will sell us Polaris/Trident. What could the Americans do if we did find someone else to rent to? Not sell us Trident upgrades? Tragic. I suspect the French would happily sell us a batch of the missiles they developed for their subs.

Gloomy Northern Boy
January 2, 2014 12:33 am

@Peter – Can’t help feeling that with rising tension in the South China Sea, the Cousins might well have a continuing interest in DG even if they do withdraw from the Gulf and “pivot to the Pacific”…and I am struggling to imagine any serious European interest in Defence (beyond further cuts) or any European Defence Entity either willing to take on a serious commitment East of Suez or able to offer us a deal with real value in respect of our interests.

In my view the idea of “Europe” as a Defence or Foreign Policy had a once in a Century chance to make it’s mark in the former Yugoslavia back in the early 1990’s and was an utter, shameful, failure…

GNB

Challenger
January 2, 2014 2:12 am

I agree about Clarkson, his Operation Chariot and Victoria Cross documentary’s were rather good and his championing of Brunel as the greatest Briton was a measure above others backing Princess Diana, John Lennon and Oliver Cromwell of all people!

His Top Gear persona is I think quite separate from his very real and passionate interests in engineering and history.

Obsvr
January 2, 2014 3:07 am

O Cromwell is the greatest ever Englishmen, even if he did almost become a New Englander. An astute politician, fine strategist, outstanding military commander and created the best army of the age, kicked the navy into competance as well, and put an end to regal buffoons thinking then could run the show. Clarkson clearly doesn’t know arse from elbow in this matter.

Simon257
January 2, 2014 9:09 am

@ Obsvr

The late Professor, Brigadier and Author Richard Holmes, did the Oliver Cromwell Documentary for the Beeb’s 2002 Greatest Briton series. As a side note, he was asked was their anyone else, he would have liked to have represented. The only other person he would have done, would have been the Unknown Warrior.

Here’s the Top one Hundred
http://alchemipedia.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/100-greatest-britons-bbc-poll-2002.html

Challenger is right about Clarkson though. Their is the Top Gear presenter Clarkson. But, their is also the Serious Documentary Presenter Clarkson as well. Looking forward to tonight’s programme.

as
January 2, 2014 12:47 pm

Bruising setback for AgustaWestland as India grounds helicopter deal

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2532313/ndia-grounds-helicopter-deal.html

India scraps £465million deal with British helicopter maker amid bribery allegations

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532389/India-scraps-465million-deal-British-helicopter-maker-amid-bribery-allegations.html

I hope they paid for the three airframes that have already been delivered.
glade to see the Norwegian deal is still ok.

dave haine
January 2, 2014 4:16 pm

The Indians seem to have form for this…I wonder if, really, the budget’s creaking, or they’re trying a novel tactic to get a bit of a discount…

And another question:
As they’ve spanked AgustaWestland for offering a bribe, what have they done to those in their government who accepted the bribe?

January 2, 2014 8:27 pm

Hey TD

Over on the QE Military Photos thread your favourite American Carrier Captain is just unpacking some of the relative merits of the Ford / QE / America Class debate.

He paints it as a big threat to the future spend on Ford Class CVN. Which he sees as being the gold standard.

But for me it reads much more as an admission of the inadequacies of the America Class design and the massive added value in QE. Capable of operating as a CV. Using the ski jump to lift big loads of the deck. Capable of recovering them without arrestor wires by SRVL. And still able to be a better Commando Carrier than ‘America’ ever can.

And the issue for the Cousins that he tiptoes cautiusly around is why not build 20 QE class instead of 10 Fords+2 America.

And atually why not? Quantity has its own value etc. And its not as if they are without budget pressures.

They won’t do it. But actually maybe they should…?

You would need a suitable VTOL AEW solution. And tanking. But actually given their budgets that is probably solvable. Evolved Osprey with pressurised cabin? Hummingbird on steroids? The answers are probably out there. If their inter-service politics would allow them to look for them.

What think?

January 2, 2014 8:35 pm

And indeed the other best poster on that thread has just unpacked some of these issues…

TED
January 2, 2014 9:56 pm

@Peter Elliot
They wont as you say do it. But that is a cracking idea!

CBRN Guru
January 2, 2014 10:21 pm

@ Dave Haine
Since I have to teach RAF Regiment year in year out due to one of their roles it’s always good to give them the best PR during a class…

http://www.arrse.co.uk/naafi-bar/188480-raf-regt-commission-painting-battle-bastion-3.html

3/4 way down Post 29

Jules
January 2, 2014 10:46 pm

Just watched the Clarkson prog on the WWII Russian convoy PQ17. Spent almost the whole hr with tears streaming down me face!
The whole episode just beggars belief…
Got to go and watch something funny before I go to bed, humbling totally humbling…

Simon257
January 2, 2014 11:02 pm

Ref Clarkson’s PQ17

I must say, that’s probably the best thing Documentry I’ve seen in a long time.

John Hartley
January 2, 2014 11:12 pm

Re Clarkson Convoy prog. Now you know why I rant on about future frigates/destroyers having hulls hardened for light ice conditions.

dave haine
January 2, 2014 11:32 pm

@CBRN Guru
Laughed my socks off at that one, there should be one of those in every regiment room, as an awful reminder…..

I never said the rockies were incapable of Tw*ttery… And rightly, tw*ttery should be identified and brought to the attention of said tw*ts… In the spirit of continuous improvement, you understand…

Standby for an anecdote:
In my civvie career as an airline ops manager, I was involved in helping a major airport brief some army officers on what we needed from them, and what they had to do to comply with the regs, when they deployed onto aforesaid major airport. It was a bit of an eye-opener…. There were meant to be twenty officers there of varying ranks of which only ten turned up and only one non-attendee sent his apologies (from the RGJ). The Grenadier Guard officer turned up but slept through all the presentations, until my engineering manager threw a glass of water at him, the household cavalry officer spent his time yawning and telling us what we were to do which largely seemed to be park the aeroplanes over the other side of the runway, and let him park his tanks on the runway. The RTR officer treated the airfield driving rules as a basis for negotiation….
In fact the only ones that impressed, were the RE and RGJ officers…they certainly were the only ones that asked sensible questions and took away the briefing packs, which contained all the legal stuff about driving and safety rules on an airfield. And we never had probs with their blokes, apart from the odd grass covered Rifleman appearing out of nowhere and scaring the crap out of the coppers.

And what a dangerous bunch of bastards, the rest were… Scorpions crossing an active taxiway, in front of a B747 caused the plane to emergency brake, exceeding the nose undercarriage limit- two day hanger job there… Some mysterious rarden shaped dents on the side of a B757, yes, someone had actually driven into the side of an A/C with a Scimitar, I mean the aeroplane was white and f**king huge, so it must have been hard to see. Helmets and bits of green kit being abandoned on the aircraft stands…Soldiers playing chicken in front of an engine as it was spooling up…

all for the want of the officers being a little less arrogant and listening to the experts…Still one hopes the General might have got the message, when he was brought into an office and screamed at in turn by me, because of the cost of the flight delays, two engineering managers because of the cost of the damage to aeroplanes, the airfield Operations Manager, because of the stupidity, and the lack of example set by the officers, and finally and not least by the Air Traffic Services Manager, who, normally a very mild-mannered, calm chap, almost lost it, because the soldiers seemed to think that they didn’t have to obey Air Traffic.

Oh and the police actually found the pipe bomb truck that had been sitting there for two days, after an army patrol had gone past, without noticing it.

Observer
January 2, 2014 11:37 pm

@dave haine

It’s not an attempted bribe solicitation, it’s an arms deal backstab that is a quirk of the current Indian procurement system. India is currently on an anti-corruption drive that sort of went off the rails, any allegations of a bribery scandal forces arms competitions to restart, so if a competitor does not like the results of the competition, all they need to do is drop a bribery rumour to political ears and viola, a 2nd chance at the pie. It’s anti-corruption being used to derail competitions and programs. It’s gotten so bad that Indian arms is at a standstill for most new procurements.

Topman
January 3, 2014 9:02 am

@ DH

That story did make me chuckle. Especially ‘ someone had actually driven into the side of an A/C’ Perhaps they were aspiring RAF movers? ;)

Tom
January 3, 2014 9:28 am

Lovely Anecdote DH.

“…the only ones that impressed, were the RE and RGJ officers…”

But of course, they were from God’s Own Corps and ‘The Chosen Men’.

Red Trousers
January 3, 2014 9:42 am

@DH,

Sounds a bit odd all of that. 20 officers from such a range of Regiments?

I only once did an airport exercise: a standing military task for security at Heathrow that was normally given to the Household Cavalry at Windsor, but occasionally devolved to the recce Regiment at Tidworth when the Tins were away. It was about 99% providing a cordon sanitaire in case an aircraft was hijacked. The idea was that the hijacked aircraft would be directed to a remote parking area that we would secure. Of course, there were a dozen tunnels underneath the parking area, and covered approaches that the Hereford Hooligans could use to get into position unobserved.

What you may not have noticed in your amusing little anecdote was that during any military deployment to an airport the legal situation changes, and primacy is handed to the military under MAC(P) regulations. So any aircraft hitting a military vehicle is probably doing something it shouldn’t. ;)

Nick
January 3, 2014 10:53 am

Type 26 Propulsion – and another what might have been story.

What ever happened to the to next step in the advancement of the navy ship propulsion which the RN with the success of the Type 23 in 1980’s to the WR-21 used in the Type 45, though successful it was overall an expensive road bump, but the RN engineers looked to have recovered with design of an economical way to exploit the GT genset for the all electric ship with long life, fuel efficient, advanced cycle marine gas turbine alternator sets, the Turbomeca ACL-GTA

With the Type 26 the RN lost it’s faith in their own engineering due no doubt to the cost of the WR-21 and the substantial pressure from BAE / Rolls Royce. What is unforgivable is that by design the ITT (The Invitation To Tender) specified diesel gensets, thereby excluding Turbomeca with their GT genset, so we will never know if cheaper. It was in RR’s own self interest as they own 50% of MTU Friedrichshafen, Germany who to no ones surprise won the contract with the Type 20V 4000 M53B diesel genset, four per ship set. (RR are exiting the small turbine market ref. the sale last September of their 50% stake in the RTM322 to Turbomeca.)

Turbomeca ACL-GTA – The RN New Thinking
In 2000 the RN under its Marine Engineering Development Strategy (MEDS) the MOD placed a contract with Turbomeca, Bordes, France for the development of a 2MW Advanced Cycle Low Power Gas Turbine (ACL-GTA) directly driving a permanent magnet high speed alternator (HSA) providing 800V DC.
http://www.calnetix.com/documents/23.pdf

HSA Requirements
Max Output Power 2030 kW
Speed Range 19krpm to 22.5krpm
Over Speed 27krpm
Output Voltage 800V DC @ EU output
Duty Cycle Continuous
Ambient Condition -20 to 55 degrees C
Available Cooling Water/glycol

The HSA operates at the same speed as the gas turbine, so a gearbox is not required, and by trading speed for torque the direct drive the genset provides a compact, light weight, efficient and low maintenance solution. This approach is enhanced by the advent of low cost high power semiconductor switching devices.
The goal of the development programme was to demonstrate the Turbomeca ACL-GTA system as a “diesel beating” solution in performance and cost. An integrated unit with all major components mounted on a common skid, gas turbine, heat recuperater, high speed alternator and electronic unit.
Gas turbines all reach minimum specific fuel consumption (SFC) at or near maximum power and so as to minimise the SFC of the ACL-GTA and keep it on the optimum point on the curve to earn the diesel beating accolade it had to operate at near full power. It would have achieved this with the five or six 2MW gensets on the Type 26 and cutting them in out on load demand.
The low weight and volume of the ACL-GTA would allow location at a higher deck level, as on the CVA, reducing the gas turbines appetite for large volume air ducts both intake and exhaust and not adversely effecting ship stability.
DC distribution is assumed so all that is required is a rectifier connected to the output of each generator.
At ASME Barcelona May 2006 the first very successful trial results were presented and then…………. the RN/Turbomeca ACL-GTA appears to have sunk without trace.
http://www.doc88.com/p-114715599919.html

Table 1 – 2MW Alternator Data Comparison
Characteristics 2MW synchronousalternator (typical) HSA
Rated Power 1800kW (+10%) 1800kW (+10%)
Nominal Speed 1500 – 1800 rpm 22,500 rpm
Efficiency (full load) 96.6% >98.0%
Weight 7000kg 850kg
Length 3m 1.35m
Diameter 1.3m 0.72m

Table 2 – Weight and Space Data
Genset Speed(rpm) Rating(MW) Length(m) Width (m) Height(m) Total Weight(tonne)
ACL GTA 22,500 1.8 6.2 2.3 3.0 15.0
MAN B&W
Paxman
12VP185 1,800 2.0 6.5 2.56 3.69 30.0
MTU 16V4000
M50B 1,800 1.8 6.5 2.1 2.9 32.5
Wartsila
12V200 1,200 2.0 7.5 2.8 3.6 38.0

As a follow up the US Navy Office of Naval Research, sponsored the following research paper confirming the engineering design of the RN.
“Directly-Coupled Gas Turbine Permanent Magnet Generator Sets for Prime Power Generation On Board Electric Ships” 2007
http://esrdc.mit.edu/library/ESRDC_library/Vijlee-Directly-IEEE-2007.pdf

As the above paper points out with gas turbines shaft speed decreases with power, Turbomeca ACL-GTA 2.0MW @ 22,500 rpm versus the RR MT30 36MW @ 3,600 rpm for the power turbine for alternator drive and @ 3,300 mechanical drive. The output power of synchronous generators is directly proportional to its shaft speed and as the power density of rotating equipment is directly related to rpm if torque is held constant a machine that rotates twice as fast will have twice the power density of the same machine running half its speed. With generators and motors efficiency is compromised when the rotor surface speed approaches the speed of sound. As a result large motors have lower rpms than smaller motors and they will have lower power density.
As a design option to work round the above constraints would be for the MT30 using the mechanical drive power turbine option and geared output up to say 15,000 rpm for four suitable high speed lightweight alternators would take substantial weight out of the 75 tonne Converteam generator as installed on the CVA.
If the MT30 genset had been chosen for the Type 26 it would have given the holy grail of the “All Electric Ship”. I suspect the option chosen for the Type 26 of the MT30 with mechanical drive power turbine at 3,300rpm to a David Brown gearbox, as used on the Astute, was substantially cheaper at the cost of lost flexibility.

DC v AC Bus
The DC breakthrough has been enabled by the development of the compact high speed solid-state circuit breakers for MVDC, both switch and tripping unit, capable of interrupting high DC currents in micro-seconds without generating an arc and are maintenance free, deliver extremely fast fault interruption, low peak currents, flexible and programmable coordination and mechanical isolation; the keys to a reliable and safe operation, (the original DC bus died years ago due to the extraordinary cost of the switch gear due to the difficulty in extinguishing the arc in a DC contractor).

The DC bus is relatively simple, the standard AC generators, inverter modules, AC motors, etc. are kept, but the main AC switchboard and the heavy duty and bulky drive transformers are no longer needed saving weight and space.

The drawback of the traditional AC power distribution systems used on ships have historically used a fixed frequency of 50 or 60 Hz. This means that the diesel engines running the generators must be kept at a constant speed in order to provide the electrical power system at this fixed frequency. Gensets with both diesel and GT engines operating on constant speed with a low load requirement have a low fuel efficiency, as when using the towed array.

The advantage of using the DC bus for power distribution enables diesel engines to operate with the flexibility of variable speeds down to 50% or lower and GT gensets power on or off dependent on system load resulting in reduced fuel consumption of up to 20%.

All AC power generation modules must operate at the same frequency in a state of synchronisation to avoid massive transfers of electrical power in transient mode between machines. To add another genset online it must match both the amplitude and the timing of the network voltage, which requires both speed and excitation to be systematically controlled for synchronization by an automatic system, this process can take several minutes.
The DC bus has no need for the speed synchronisation to stabilise separate engines. With a DC bus a genset can be connected to a power network by adjusting its open-circuit terminal voltage to match the network voltage by either adjusting its speed or its field excitation, the exact engine speed is not critical.
In a normal diesel-electric AC power system the delivery of power to the main-board results in harmonic distortion of frequency and current. Harmonic distortion occurs through non-linear loads of standard frequency converters, which cause distortion of the electrical supply which can, for example resulting in flickering lights on board, or possibly blackouts or components over heating problems. These generator sets need an advanced power management system adding cost and baulk. (The Queen Mary 2 suffered a catastrophic failure of a capacitor and explosion in the aft harmonic filter room September 2010)
With a DC board each line of generator sets is equipped with an AFE (Active Front End) rectifier, filtering and transforming the delivered AC power from the generator set into DC power for the DC main board. The DC bus system allows you to combine different kinds of generator sets with varying speeds, frequency, voltage, AC or DC, or power capacity, resulting in total flexibility, you could use batteries as backup to bring power on instantly in case of battle or fire damage. All main board consumers are equipped with a standard industrial DC/AC converter, ensuring the supply of clean sinusoidal AC current. In this way the harmonic distortion is solved at the start of the system, before the main-board, instead of solving the problem at the end, or consumer side, of the electrical system.

One example of the DC bus being the ABB “Onboard DC Grid” system which enables a combination of power sources suitable for installed power up to 20MW and the circuit operates at 1000V DC.
ABB state that with a DC bus the footprint and weight of the electrical system can be reduced by up to 30 percent, which would leave more space on the Type 26 for extra systems, weapons and fuel plus greater flexibility in the positioning of system components in the ship plus up to 20% in fuel savings.

Motors & Propellers
No mention has been made to date of the motors to be used or gears required for the design rpm for the propeller. As rule of thumb only 12.5% power is required to achieve 50% of rated maximal speed so the motor could be between 2.5 to 6MW per shaft, the four MTU diesel gensets output is in the order of 12MW. (The CVA which is all electric uses tandem motors on each prop shaft, Converteam AIM 180 rpm 20MW 110 tonne.)
Electrical motor propulsion using frequency modulation allows for the use of variable speed fixed pitch propellers, FPP, less costly than CPP, simple with low maintenance, small hub giving better open water efficiency than CPP, performance degrades rapidly at off design speed leading to potential cavitation.
The alternative is the controllable pitch propellers, CPP cost 3-4 times a FPP. With it’s large hub needed to contain the pitch actuating mechanism which at a low load leads to hydrodynamic losses estimated at 15% and cause cavitation, not desirable on on an ASW frigate where low noise is a most. The CPP also requires complex control hydraulics and maintenance is of an order of magnitude higher than the FPP. To offset the above the advantages is the pitch can be optimised over a wide speed range, enabling sailing efficiently at varying load and weather conditions and if the pitch range is large enough the propeller can produce astern thrust.

Final Note
To bring the Type 26 in on budget and on time the BAE announcements at DSEI of subcontractors RR, DB & MTU does not inspire confidence as so many other long lead items of the propulsion system were left hanging in the air, lets hope it was just PR and that on final Main Gate approval all will be in order.

“If you look at their approach, (Japanese, Koreans & Chinese) they never start a construction project without having their design done, the planning done and the material available. And what we sometimes miss in this country,(US) there will be people who say I got 80 percent of the design done, I’m in good shape. And that’s mediocre at best. And I’ll tell you why because the last 20 percent of the design is the most difficult. And if you’re looking at where you’ll possibly have inconsistencies, errors in the design process, it’s in that last 20 percent. ”
http://www.sldinfo.com/building-a-ne…ding-platform/

.
MTU DIESEL ENGINE-GENERATOR SET 2500-XC6DT2 (20V4000)
2500 kWe / 60 Hz / Standby 380 – 13.8kV
http://www.mtuonsiteenergy.com/fileadmin/fm-dam/mtu_onsite_energy/1_products/spec-sheets/diesel-generator-sets/USA/60Hz/diesel_standby/2500-XC6DT2-Standby__20V4000_.pdf
Rolls Royce MT30 Fact Sheet
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/mt30factsheet.pdf
http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=894:converteam-ships-first-36-mw-generator-for-new-british-aircraft-carrier&Itemid=230
ABB DC Bus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7KfoDM7Z8E
http://gcaptain.com/abbs-onboard-grid-installed/
http://www.dynamic-positioning.com/dp2011/power_hansen.pdf
Background
http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/ArticlefromJanesCJanesInformationGroup.pdf
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/18066/Reengining-the-Iowas-DE-hybrid-propulsion?page=1#.UrWN4vRdWgs
http://alexandria.tue.nl/SAI/openaccess/750674.pdf
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~bachmayer/engr6055/assignments/reading-assignments/variable_pitch_thesis.pdf
http://alexandria.tue.nl/SAI/openaccess/750674.pdf

e & eo as not an engineer ;)

SomewhatRemoved
January 3, 2014 11:02 am

On a completely different subject, my TD experience has just improved immeasurably! DII just upgraded to Internet Explorer 8! Oh the browsing joy…

Still not allowed into YouTube or Flickr through, makes some articles just plain unreadable.

Dunservin
January 3, 2014 11:27 am

@RT

“…What you may not have noticed in your amusing little anecdote was that during any military deployment to an airport the legal situation changes, and primacy is handed to the military under MAC(P) regulations. So any aircraft hitting a military vehicle is probably doing something it shouldn’t. ;)”

– Military primacy? The UK may have been under martial law when you were serving but things have changed, even where airports are concerned, according to Joint Doctrine Publication 02 (JDP 02), 2nd Edition dated September 2007 – OPERATIONS IN THE UK: THE DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION TO RESILIENCE.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61965/defenceconrtibution1.pdf

PREFACE

Background

1. A core responsibility of any Government is the security of its sovereign territory and population. In the United Kingdom (UK) , there is a distinction between the defence of the UK against military threats and UK civil protection as established in statute by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and enabled through the cross-Government Department and Inter-Agency Integrated Emergency Management (IEM) approach.

2. All military operations undertaken within the UK fall under the generic title of United Kingdom Operations (UK Ops). This designation includes the Defence contribution to resilience, which is provided at the specific request of the civil authorities, is subject to civil primacy and requires the authorisation of Defence Ministers.

Scope

3. This publication addresses those UK Ops that rely on close civil/military cooperation. UK Ops activity includes: Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA), Military Operations (MO) in support of the standing strategic and overseas tasks and Military Home Defence (MHD) of UK territory against an external military threat. Although MHD is a dormant UK operation, details have been included to reflect its close association with both MACA and the Standing Home Commitment (SHC) military tasks…

417. Command Relationships. Overall responsibility for the resolution of criminal and terrorist incidents lies with the Police, and the direction of operations at the scene will rest with the Police Gold Commander [Bronze, Silver and Gold correspond to the Operational, Tactical and Strategic level of police operational C2]. Service personnel deployed under MACP arrangements will take direction from the senior police officer dealing with the operation, irrespective of rank, to enable the delivery of authorised effect. However, command and tactical control of Service personnel will remain with a military commander.

896 (6) Airport Operators. Not every LRF (Lead Responder Forum) area will have an airport within it, and not every airport will be subject to the CCA [Civil Contingencies Act 2004]. Only ‘relevant airport operators’ [Defined as those with an annual throughput of at least 50,000 passengers or 10,000 tonnes of freight] are covered by the CCA. During an emergency affecting an airport, the airport staff retain control of operations and meet obligations as prescribed by the regulator…

wf
January 3, 2014 11:48 am

@SomewhatRemoved: why any organization, anywhere, uses IE is beyond me. Unless they are so screwed up they have to continue using ActiveX of course….

Chris
January 3, 2014 12:07 pm

wf – I’d love to find a browser that doesn’t hoover out all spare memory and some, doing things I don’t want or need on behalf of faceless spy programs called cookies. But so far I have failed. I have tried using all the non-IE based browsers I can find (Firefox/Seamonkey/Netscape, Opera, Chrome, Safari, K-meleon), many have difficulty displaying content developed presumably on IE and not sufficiently tested on other platforms. But all of them eat memory like its going out of fashion – when minimised the memory occupied by the browser is small, but over a few minutes the memory usage ramps up more than tenfold all by itself; all I can guess is that this is the thousands of “you must accept this” cookies reporting stuff from my PC to organisations I cannot trace. I would dearly love cookies to be made illegal – I will accept a slower load of webpages; in exchange I’d get my memory back. Sadly refusing to accept these nasty programs generally blocks access to web content.

Whether all this background stuff is ActiveX or Java, Flash or other plug-in I have no idea. All I know is for reasons immaterial to me third parties are prodding around inside my PC for stuff to steal.

East_Anglian
January 3, 2014 12:59 pm

Reference the AW-101’s caught up in the Augusta/Indian bribe row..

I understand that 2 have been delivered 2 are about to be,and 2 have been flogged to somewhere else leaving 6 on the production line.

How about the UK buy them to provide a dedicated pool of airlift for UK Operations/general ass and trash hauling/VIP transport as and when required?

Perhaps form an RAuxAF flight to look after them?

Red Trousers
January 3, 2014 1:28 pm

@ Dunservin,

It was in the 80s, but MAC(P) still trumps normal civvy laws, when invoked. Think about it, no one is going to try to maintain normal airport operations when a hijacked civvy airliner is on the Tarmac, at least not in the immediate area. The Hooligans have total primacy once COBRA hands over the situation, the cordon of green troops is under command of the Hooligans, and if the task is to stop unauthorised movement into the cordon, with lethal ROE authorised, then some spastic air traffic controller’s attempts to keep the 1115 to Ibiza on time is going to be over-ruled.

SomewhatRemoved
January 3, 2014 1:39 pm

wf,

Apart from being yet another irritating thing I have to click to get the computer to do something, I have no idea what an ActiveX control actually does! Believe me I’d rather use Chrome or Firefox. The Indians got it right with OpenOffice.

TED
January 3, 2014 1:58 pm

@East_Anglican wouldn’t that be lovely!

TED
January 3, 2014 2:19 pm

On no subject at all can anyone tell me where future force 2020 came from? Specifically to the RAF and does it link with SDSR 2010.

January 3, 2014 3:48 pm

TED,

It’s mentioned on page 19 and 20 of the SDSR 2010

Not sure if that’s what you’re asking ;-)

TED
January 3, 2014 3:57 pm

Cheers for that Simon I just found it there as well. My question is, is that a government initiative or is it the services saying how they will meet it or something else. I just don’t get where it came from :D probably someones overactive imagination!

wf
January 3, 2014 4:05 pm

@Chris: I use Chrome with the Ghostery add on which allows you to see what cookies and other tracking are active, and block all or some of them, whenever you wish. I also use “click to run” as an option for content to ensure Flash etc will not start automatically unless I explicitly click on the object. Unlike Firefox, I do find Chrome to be less prone to memory leaks…but YMMV :-)

Chris
January 3, 2014 4:31 pm

wf – I have just put the ghostery thing in the PC for the two browsers I normally use. No significant change in memory use, but hopefully less prying by those who have no business in the PC. Thanks for the info!

January 3, 2014 4:33 pm

TED,

Your guess in certainly as good as mine on that one. I think the SDSR 2010 was a bit rushed. Normally the gov state what they want to achieve strategically and the services then indicate how they would deliver that capability. I get the impression it was not done quite that way with this SDSR. I put it down to the gov not actually knowing what they really want to achieve.

ALL (re: browsers),

IE tends to be the memory gobbler in my experience. It also fails to conform to standards which makes the programmers that target IE only (many of ’em) support a company that continually seems to want to undermine the value of the Internet/HTTP/HTML/etc.

I do agree with wf that it is differrent for different users. I personally use Firefox and have done for the last decade. I continually try other browsers and only Safari made me change for a while (I changed back eventually).

Perhaps you should just disable Flash?

Chris
January 3, 2014 6:36 pm

Just for a bit of fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECmbme_UKs

Mark Hanna did much the same to us at Goodwood’s first Revival meeting in 1998 (the same event where his dad Ray flew a Spitfire at speed along the start/finish straight so low those in the grandstands were looking down on the plane). He flew in at full chat in the Hispano version of the 109 hurtling in from behind us spectators on top of the circuit banking, maybe 50ft above us but more likely 30ft, on his way to beat up the airfield. Spectacular! None of us were complaining.

Here’s a bit of Ray & Mark stretching the legs of a couple of old warriors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoC63cGw76o – sadly it seems a combination of CAA commandment, insurance conditions and a reluctance to stress the aircraft any more than absolutely necessary means the current air displays are sterile to the point of boredom. Not a description that could ever have been used when Hanna father & son were at the controls; never a dull moment when they were in control.

Bizarrely, the most astonishing display of a Spitfire I have ever seen was at East Midlands airport; we were finishing the 737 sim I mentioned elsewhere; our building looked over the taxiways to a set of small hangars. Not that we were aware at the time, but in one of these hangars a Spitfire was being restored ready for flight. One evening we heard the stutter of a Merlin starting – unmistakable – so gathered at the windows to see what was going on. The aircraft was quickly ready for flight; if I recall correctly it used the taxiway as its runway and was airborne within a short distance. It then proceeded to perform very accurate, very tight, very high speed manoeuvres at low level, all just over the way from our vantage point. What I mean is manoeuvres like knife-edging between hangars too close together for level flight, performing 90 left 90 right turns over the taxiway and disappearing on the opposite wing-tip between another two hangars on the other side of the taxiway. All at high speed. It was the only time I ever saw a Spitfire being used to its full potential as a high agility fighter and it was absolutely mesmerizing – a truly astonishing display and brilliantly flown. I understand it was performed as a thank-you to the team of restorers who had just finished putting it together – what a thank you! I also understand the pilot was called to the headmaster’s office at the CAA shortly afterwards…

Staying with the same sort of aircraft, this has some fine air-air footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzUUlO6ihwE

dave haine
January 3, 2014 8:37 pm

@RT
It wasn’t a hijacked aircraft situation- That is a different game, and would be done at Stansted- which has a large apron specifically for such events. Where the soldiers can play without trying to make aeroplanes crash, or kill vast amounts of innocent travellers through stupidity. And yes, we wouldn’t try to continue normal ops with a hijacked aeroplane on the tarmac…there are more important things than on-time performance…little things like safety…keeping people alive…and unhurt.

This was during a heightened security threat- where the army was brought in assist security.
So that ‘spastic’ air traffic controller is the absolute legal authority on that airfield. Regardless of any situation there are two people legally responsible for the safe operation of any airfield- The Airfield Operations Manager and the Air Traffic Services Manager…Ultimately they are answerable to the DfT, and can be prosecuted for any failing.

Now just to put my cards on the table…I have a DfT Aviation Security Managers ticket. And the Department for Transport line is just as Dunservin indicated…responsibility remains with the airfield operator.

Officially, a hijacked aeroplane is just a ‘delegated’ operation, in so much as command is delegated to the senior police officer, who can use whatever resources he requires. If the ‘Gold’ commander wants to use the gentlemen from Hereford he can ask under MACA. Even then, only when the gold commander is satisfied does he relinquish control. Ultimate authority and responsibility still rest with the airfield operator if it goes to f**k, and the operator hadn’t demonstrated appropriate responses and due diligence, the operator is the one who would be prosecuted.

My point was that, apart from, the RE and the RGJ officers, the others were too arrogant to take advice from ‘thems as knows best’- and this seems to be a common theme amongst our military brethren…I will say that the RAF were probably worst at one time- but if you work in an airline now, especially a big one, chances are you will meet ernest RAF officers, trying to learn more about how we do things.

BTW, it was 20 officers from the Guards, Household Cavalry, Royal Green Jackets and Royal Engineers. Why the Royal Tank Regiment chap was there, is anyone’s guess, but he was on the list submitted by MOD. The gentlemen from Hereford, had organised their own private meeting a few days before, where they said nothing, listened intently (and I mean unnervingly, intently), took copious notes and drank all the tea and nicked all the biscuits. And they never went to the Kharzi either.

El Sid
January 3, 2014 8:51 pm

+1 on the Clarkson VC prog, Chariot wasn’t bad either.

Did I miss somewhere a suggestion about getting grown-ups writing articles? There’s form across the pond, where some in the Pentagon “get” the idea of engaging in public debate, Galrahn has had the likes of Bob Work contributing articles to http://www.informationdissemination.net. But then they’ve always had the tradition of thrashing out issues in the pages of the USNI Proceedings and dozens of thinktanks, whereas…we invented the Chatham House Rule. Plus we have a much smaller defence community which lends itself to face-to-face discussion, and we don’t have the luxury of thinking about a fleet of FACs or whether we can afford to lose four 100,000t CVNs. Still, as the old man said, when we have run out of money, now we have to think – and I think there’s lots of debate to be had about the Army in particular in the run-up to SDSR 2015.

@TED
The SDSR is a strategy review – the MoD looking at the strategic environment (which includes the budget and political environment) and come up with a strategy which includes planning the future force structure. SDSR 2010 was not as detailed as say the USN’s 30-year shipbuilding plan, but Future Force 2020 as set out in the SDSR is a snapshot of where the MoD thinks it’s heading. That can change – for instance the SDSR planned for seven C-17’s, but the poor deprived crabs now have another £200m toy to play with.

El Sid
January 3, 2014 8:53 pm

@SomewhatRemoved
Radical suggestion – you could browse TD at home, when you’re not on the Queen’s shilling? :-)

@Chris
Cookies aren’t programs, they’re just bits of text – depending on how your browser stores them, you can read them in Notepad. And the thing to remember is that in general only the server that sets a cookie can read it. I don’t have too much problem with cookies set directly by a website, it makes my life easier if TD remembers my name. The problem comes more when a webpage pulls in bits from other servers, most notably from ad companies. Cookies let them record each site that your computer (not you personally, note) has visited, where it gets problematic is when they start cross-correlating that information. So if a company has served up an ad to you on mothercare.com and guardian.co.uk and you then visit a supermarket site, you might expect to get bombarded with adverts for organic tofu babyfood and nappies hand-knitted by Tibetan monks.

OK, so pandering to right-on new mothers is maybe not the worst thing they can do, but you get the idea. The ad companies are not as bad as the likes of Twitter and Amazon who used to drop cookies when you visited unrelated sites with an image link to Twitter/Amazon, there was just no excuse for that. Personally I think the analysis of webmail, and the patterns you reveal by your search engine use are probably more of a privacy problem (at least cookies can be blocked and/or deleted periodically). One thing that makes life better is a custom hosts file (http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm ) which misdirects your browser whenever it’s told to go to http://www.evil-ad-server.com and so no cookies get set (nor do you download the advert). So you see fewer ads and get fewer malware/privacy problems – pretty much a no-brainer.

@SR
The web is based on HTML, which is just plain text and so pretty much since the start people have tried to make web browsers do “more” by embedding little software programmes inside web pages. Several software frameworks have been used to provide this kind of functionality – ActiveX was just the Microsoft version, you may have heard of Java which was the main alternative back in the day. In the early primitive days of HTML you needed a helper program just to make a button change colour when you moused over it, and until quite recently you needed something like Flash in order to break out of the browser so that a video could be displayed in full screen, but you could build full-blown applications as well. The trouble was that downloading random programs in a web page was a security nightmare often exploited by virus writers, and the frameworks themselves had holes in them. Apple pretty much killed them off by banning such frameworks from the iThings, along with HTML advancing to the stage where you could do most of the trivial prettifying using HTML. So the likes of ActiveX have been pretty much consigned to the dustbin of history.

I’d make the comment that browsers don’t stand still, and what is true of one version may not be true of more recent versions. The problem with IE rendering sites differently to everything else was only a big problem up to IE6, but since then MS has sorted it and recent versions are in some respects more standards-compliant than Firefox/Chrome. Same with the memory leaks – IE was horrendous up until IE7 or so as it treated each new tab as a new window, but that’s now fixed, some people would claim it’s now better than the others. In any case memory leaks are not something to really worry about if you’re not a heavy user and you’re switching the computer off each night.

Just generally, Chrome seems to have reached a peak 2-3 years ago, but there seems to be a thought that Firefox has overtaken Chrome recently. Personally I’ve never quite got on with Chrome and I don’t like all my privacy eggs in one basket, so I’m happy to let Google have my search business but go elsewhere for my browser and phone operating system.

As always, if you’re not paying a business for a product – then YOU are the product being sold….

Red Trousers
January 3, 2014 9:17 pm

@ DH,

It doesn’t matter how much you go on about normal day to day rules, you are still talking about MAC(A), not MAC(P). Until you understand the difference, it’s wittering.

Fluffy Thoughts
January 3, 2014 9:35 pm

Some lovely pictures from ‘xav’ over at mp.net. Question:

Should we not park our Daves on the right (S’board) areas; thus keeping the centre-line clear and allowing SRVL (or whatever it is called) to approach from Port?

Fluffy Thoughts
January 3, 2014 9:59 pm

“Convoy is to scatter” was something I read in 1981. It was an old, painful story then (published 1974).

Why do ‘grown-up’ relive an Al-Beeb picture-fest when there are so many documents recorded,* readable and addressable….?

* World-at-War; The Times History of the Second World War. [All before 1990….]

dave haine
January 3, 2014 10:37 pm

@ RT
Laboriously copied out from my DfT Manual:
“All operations must be conducted within both civil and military law. Failure to comply with this principle may result in criminal and/or civil law proceedings being brought against individuals or the appropriate agency. Unlike the Police and some other civil agencies, it should be noted that members of the Armed Forces have no powers over and above those of the ordinary citizen. They have the same personal duty as anyone else to abide by the law at all times.”

Air Traffic Services Managers, Airfield Operations managers, indeed an Airline Operations Managers are all ‘Approved Posts’. Which means the Civil Aviation Authority on behalf of the DfT have to approve the individuals filling those posts. This means that they come under ‘some other Civil agencies’.

As an Operations Manager I had the:
‘legal duty and power, in any circumstance, to direct any and all persons to act in such a way as to effect the safe operation of an aeroplane registered within the UK, or an aeroplane operating on behalf of an operator approved and licensed within the UK’
As well as being:
‘Required to prevent any actions by any person, in any circumstance, that may reasonably be expected to endanger the safe operation of any aeroplane registered in the UK, or an aeroplane operating on behalf of an operator approved and licensed within the UK.

There’s a whole load of other aviation legalish…The whole document was eight pages long and had to be signed on every page.

It’s the ‘in any circumstance’ that’s the arse-biter….

dave haine
January 3, 2014 10:53 pm

And just so you know- that I do understand…(Please don’t forget DfT-approved Aviation Security Manager)
I’m going to quote from the policy document:
“Maintaining operational readiness to provide military support for activities in the UK”

“Standing ready to support the civil authorities when their capacity is overwhelmed. The armed forces provide this support from spare capacity, so it is subject to the availability of resources (without affecting core defence objectives). It is not typically force driving (i.e. MOD does not generate forces specifically for this task).”

“Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) includes:

a. military aid to other government departments (MAGD): assistance provided by the armed forces on urgent work of national importance or in maintaining supplies and essential services

b. military aid to the civil power (MACP): assistance provided by armed forces to the civil power in its maintenance of law, order and public safety using specialist capabilities or equipment beyond that of the Civil Power

c. military aid to the civil community (MACC): assistance provided to the civil community for emergencies, special projects or events of significant value to the civil community, or attachment of volunteers

d. training and logistic assistance to the civil police (TLACP): used when the military is not directly involved in the civil power’s operation but supports their operational activity, for example by allowing the police to use a Army Reserve centre to assemble and brief a large number of police officers.”

Notice the words ‘support’, ‘assistance’….not ‘command’, ‘Control’.

You would be talking about operations in the event of a breakdown of civil authority…yes we covered that too…that would be where the senior local commander could ‘require my assistance’

Red Trousers
January 3, 2014 11:09 pm

@dh,

You are still going on about normality. Don’t you know about powers in council when COBRA sits?

Basically, if power is handed over to the military under MAC(P), clearly for limited circumstances and time, then your normal rules don’t count. So no need to re type extensively your very interesting civil service rule book, it was designed for a different situation.

Dunservin
January 4, 2014 1:15 am

@RT

To dh: “You are still going on about normality. Don’t you know about powers in council when COBRA sits?”…

– As he has since confirmed, dh’s anecdote initiating this discussion (021132 Jan) was situated in the MACA context of what you term “normality”. It was you who clouded the issue by introducing irrelevant refererences to COBRA and exceptional powers that might or might not be delegated to SF in rare circumstances.

– Of course airport operations are likely to be affected by an incident but the regs specify that airport staff will continue to control them, albeit under the direction of the Gold Commander if appropriate. Such operations include the movement of all vehicles airside which brings us back to dh’s anecdote that sparked your challenge to the authority of airport staff, vice the military, to control airport operations in a MACA situation.

– My former line of work included participating in dozens of MACA/MACP operations, usually as senior ‘military officer’ present, and I believe I am still relatively up to speed.

SomewhatRemoved
January 4, 2014 10:54 am

El Sid,

Unfortunately since I’m paid by the day I’m permamently on the Queen’s time, so no luck there. Plus I’m 8000 miles away from home!

Nick,

The genset idea does sound ideal. What you’re missing is that by specialising in a one-off supplier, you limit the maintenance support available. By buying a comercially available diesel genset you buy into a much more agile and effective supplier chain, plus most ports will have an MTU, Caterpillar or other heavy diesel suppier and maintainer (or representative). Commerical repair options, both for cost and speed, make a lot of sense – why fly a representative out to fix a broken genset if there is a commercial one available? The idea you proposed has the same potential flaws as the god-awful ICR technology on the back of the WR-21 in the T45, as well as the utterly awful Paxman Valenta and Deltic engines we still use today. Commercial diesels are built to a far more robust standard than anything of a military spec, which is why we are upgrading the T23 diesels to Caterpillars (I think, one of the major manufacturers anyway).

Plus, a high frequency genset (and lets face it, a GT is a high frequency device no matter how clever the genset) will therefore generate high frequency noise emissions which are far harder to mask acoustically than a low frequency diesel (which also sounds like any one of ten million other diesel engines out there). For an ASW platform, avoiding high freqency noise is essential.

dave haine
January 4, 2014 10:59 am

@ RT
To be absolutely clear- My anecdote was a heightened security state where the police, acting under the direction of the Airfield Operations Manager requested the assistance of the army under MACA. We were instructed to make sure that the army were aware of the legal responsibilities and the flight safety duties concerned with being on an airfield.

Hijacks are covered by different rules- which without going into detail can be summarised as:
Ultimate authority always rests with the airport operator, unless the aircraft is in the air, who delegates incident command to the Police, who can request any support they think they will require.
If the Gold commander believes a military response is necessary, then the police will request authority to transfer command for the duration of the active phase of the military operation to the senior military officer, who will hand back control upon completion of the active phase.

After speaking to my DfT contact (which will cost me beers I will point out). He pointed out that, in all cases, the military have to be given command by the incident commander and in no circumstance can/will COBRA order a transfer of command, without consulting the incident commander (This is apparently, the judgement of the Attorney-General, having been tested in a previous case) An order in council would only be used in a national emergency, in which case the whole question of legal authority is moot anyway, because, generally, normal civil liberties and responsibilities will have been suspended anyway.

The Securocrat
January 4, 2014 11:35 am

@Simon/TED

It’s worth reading some of the work done by RUSI and Andrew Dorman and Paul Cornish in International Affairs on analysing the SDSR in 2010. As a very short answer it was complicated by the financial situation and the Coalition Government. The need for a Defence Review had been recognised by the previous government, so there had been a Defence Green paper published (which sets out the questions to be answered) and the background context prepared in the Future Character of Conflict and Global Strategic Trends papers. Defence started on a series of ‘workstrands’, with the knowledge that they also had to deal with the financial hole, but not sure how.

Then the Coalition was formed and decided it wanted to refresh the National Security Strategy and run a Defence *and* Security Review. As a consequence the Cabinet Office and new National Security Secretariat took over the work, and it had to incorporate a whole series of government departments. Added to this was the pending Spending Review. So either the NSS and SDSR could carry on at their own pace and be fully worked out (but risk being made redundant by the CSR) or they could be rushed to influence the CSR (but at the risk of making mistakes.

So in the end, Defence got a better spending settlement, but we’ve seen the mistakes made in the rush and transfer to the Cabinet Office, like the problems with the size of the Army and the F35 and carrier conversion errors. In the end it took something called the ‘three month exercise’ in 2011 to have another bite at the cherry followed by some more work on the Equipment Plan before we ended up with the Future Force 2020 we have now.

El Sid
January 4, 2014 1:08 pm

Clarkson VC – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpg6h16k8eU (I think his great-uncle had won one so there was a family link)

St Nazaire – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXusKM5uX0s

Making of “” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXFw7seYNOw

TED
January 4, 2014 3:47 pm

@El Sid and others
Cheers I could read, understand and see the changes in it but I had no idea who decided to do it.

Deja Vu
January 4, 2014 6:53 pm

The @DH @RT spat reminds me.

A friend from Uni was attached to an ADR Sqn on an exercise on one of the clutch airfields, so they put him in the ops cell in the RAF Command Post, as one does. An aircraft was due so the Sappers were told to clear the runway, which they interpreted as deploying the ADR recce to the runway with the plant trundling on behind.

Not that I would have used “Uni” at the time.

dave haine
January 4, 2014 8:08 pm

@ DV
Spat? Nah…..just a difference of opinion and interpretation.
I like your anecdote…
I’ve experienced some ‘oh f**k’ moments due to misunderstandings, like that

One was at Ovda in Israel and went like:

My aircraft’s Capt: “We need to clear runway, We have a technical issue”
Ovda Tower: “Understood”
After a wait an Isreali Armoured Bulldozer turns-up, with attendant ambulances and Fire trucks….
Ovda Tower: “You haven’t evacuated your aircraft- you must evacuate your aircraft”
Capt: “….errrr, Why?, we just need to clear the runway, while we sort out a problem”
Tower: ” You asked to clear the runway- ?”
Capt: “errr, ohh!….yes, we just need to come onto a stand, while we reset the auto-throttle”
Tower: “Ohhhh…..(background noise of laughter)”

Apparently, to the Isreali military, “Clear the runway” means the aircraft has a major problem, and cannot move without risk…..
hence the armoured bulldozer, and yes, as there are fighters based there, they would just bulldoze the aeroplane of the runway.
If the captain had said ‘we need to come back to stand’ they would have understood. The girl in the tower thought all this was hilarious, and had to call us in the Ops room, to recount the story (and claim her chocolate!)

January 4, 2014 8:39 pm

It was in the 80s, but MAC(P) still trumps normal civvy laws, when invoked.

The situation is far more grey than that in legal terms. Some commentators have called for a new law to make things like that clearer but I don’t believe there has been one. So the precise status of the military during UK Ops is not clear cut unless they end up operating under the various emergency legislation including the CCA2004.

dave haine
January 4, 2014 9:34 pm

@ Phil
That is probably the best way to sum up the situation.
We have the situation where someone like me has got clearly defined legal duties and responsibilities, laid down by the CAA and the DfT. The police have similar legal duties and responsibilities, but laid down down by the Home Office. And they overlap….to the bemusement and amusement of many of the police officers I’ve dealt with. But we make it work by applying common sense.

Just to confuse: CCA2004 (Which only replaced section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act 1964) only applies to Airport Operators- Aircraft Operators remain under the provisions of the various Civil Aviation Acts. As do National Air Traffic Services, and Air Traffic Services Managers.

as
January 5, 2014 1:08 am

Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base – was Putin testing our response time?)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533846/Battle-stations-Navy-scrambles-destroyer-challenge-Russian-warship-British-coast-takes-24-hours-make-600-mile-journey-Portsmouth-base-Putin-testing-response-time.html

Do have to wonder why the Russians waste money the do not have on exercises like this which does not gain them much experience or useful data?

Z
January 5, 2014 1:10 am

No shortage of naval escorts for the Syrian chemical extraction plan (if the stuff eventually gets to Latakia) > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25547203

x
January 5, 2014 1:18 am

A picture of Rainbow Warrior 3 because I am still wondering about a Scottish navy.

NB: No guns. Under powered green tech. Nice rainbow painted up the side. Only needs some chaff dispensers and it could be the new T26. Note the other “synergy” in that it is designed for and operated by organisation well past its prime, that is a little bit too politically correct, full of its own self-importance, and cries foul well tackled by men with guns. Perfect. It is enough to make you want to shoot a YouTube video miming to a pop song in a multimillion pound ship. :)

SomewhatRemoved
January 5, 2014 1:57 am

x, since you’re being such a miserable sod at the moment, what’s your take on this one then?

http://www.navy-net.co.uk/fleet/73228-youtube-christmas-story-bedtime-hms-richmond.html

Are we navy boys getting too soppy and homesick for you?

January 5, 2014 12:42 pm
All Politicians are the Same
January 5, 2014 1:31 pm

I do not normally approve but these are funny and really clever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9hcD2O-IUM

Mark
January 5, 2014 1:55 pm
All Politicians are the Same
January 5, 2014 2:04 pm

@Mark

My favourite bit was that “no gunfire was exchanged”.

Or the RUSI expert who claims that the Russian incursion into Swedish airspace last year was driven off when sweden launched aircraft when it was intercepted by Danish F16s on NATO policing in the Baltic States.

paul g
January 5, 2014 3:51 pm

@wiseape, I was just checking to see if anyone else had posted a link to that story, you beat me to it! The savings quoted for tornado parts is interesting, I wonder if in the near future the stores will just have consumables on the shelf and a printer linked to a BAe VPN in the corner? Handy if you’re 8000 miles away at MPA, no waiting for the spare to arrive on a timmy (or is it Vinnie the voyager nowadays)!!

Topman
January 5, 2014 4:19 pm

Seems they are just starting off small ‘protective covers for cockpit radios and guards for power take-off shafts.’ They are simple fibreglass covers, be interesting to see metal parts as per the warton example at front line units. It could be a change in how we do things. It’d interesting to see this sort of thing on ships, certainly be very handy when deployed.

dave haine
January 5, 2014 5:13 pm

@WiseApe, paul g, topman

Can’t see it replacing structural parts, but, you never know, Wonder how much the printer costs, and how big it is?

mr.fred
January 5, 2014 5:26 pm

3D metal printers tend to be tens of thousands and they will be as big as the parts need to be. Bigger means more costly.

In stainless and titanium the static strength tend to be the same as for bulk metal – i.e. little to no loss of strength. However the durability is a little less well known and likely to be less than mill-produced metal.

Mark
January 5, 2014 5:29 pm

Quite a gd paper on the subject http://www.altairhyperworks.co.uk/technology/Files/Papers/EADS.pdf

RR have been looking at doing this with turbine blades be awhile away yet though.

wf
January 5, 2014 5:44 pm

@Mark: it’s been a long time since I drew pathetically banana-like blade sections and worked out my “fir trees”, but surely 3D printing sounds quite a bit like plasma disposition with regard to turbine blades?

Mark
January 5, 2014 6:18 pm

wf

I have never worked on engine bits closest I ever got was nacelles and the travelling public are forever thankful! So I can’t say I know too much about the technique. But am I right in saying that the plasma deposition is a coating that is applied to the blade after there made? If that’s the case its a similar technique only they would look to make the whole blade that way.

SomewhatRemoved
January 5, 2014 6:36 pm

3D printing – definitely the way forward. Not sure how it would work onbard ship though – don’t most of them work on a liquid raw material? Ship roll!!

wf
January 5, 2014 6:46 pm

@Mark: yes, I think that’s the point. I sort of wonder if this could be applied to making sintered components without the need for a mould. Either way, I suspect this stuff will be restricted to non-structural components for the time being. Still a big gain IMHO :-)

mr.fred
January 5, 2014 8:05 pm

SomewhatRemoved,

Some 3D printing uses a liquid medium (Sterolithography) – that was state-of-the-art two decades ago and restricted to plastic. More recent systems use powder beds (Selective Laser Sintering) which can do metals but they tend to be of poor quality compared to mill-produced material.
More modern techniques include Electron Beam Melting which uses (surprisingly) an Electron Beam to melt feedstock, which can achieve very similar properties to mill material in some alloys.

Until exhaustive testing is done on the additive manufacturing end product, it isn’t going to be reliable enough for primary structure, it might do for secondary or lightly stressed structure. Spare parts to get you home, prototype parts which will be watched closely or not critical if they break – these are the near future application of additive manufacture.

John Hartley
January 5, 2014 8:44 pm

A few weeks back, Russia Today TV had an item on an American firm that had 3D printed a M1911 .45acp stainless steel pistol. They had fired over 1000 rounds through it ok. The machines to print it cost $600K to $1 million. However the patents run out in Feb & cheaper generic machines will follow. I think it was laser sintering from stainless steel powder.

Gloomy Northern Boy
January 5, 2014 11:22 pm

Having missed his original post on the Nameless Islands Thread, I just wanted to say how sorry I was to read that @x has decided to part company with the alphabet soup…I for one am hoping that his departure proves only to be a sabbatical; likewise @IXION.

However, in memory of @x “Build more ships! build more ships!” and of @IXION “Don’t be so daft! don’t be so daft!”

A rather saddened Gloomy (Is that a tautology?)

Mark
January 6, 2014 6:13 pm

Another we bit on 3d parts.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/3d-printing-to-cut-costs-on-raf-tornado-squadrons-394571/

““Engineers are designing and producing 3D printed functional components at RAF Marham, which will cut the cost of repairs, maintenance and service to the Royal Air Force to the tune of more than £1.2 million [$1.9 million] over the next four years,” BAE says. Printed components will be made available for use with aircraft from four squadrons, under an agreement to run through 2017, with some £300,000 having already been saved.”

This bit caught my eye mainly for the date given off when the contract runs until. Not the first time is seen tornado and 2017 mentioned together. Anyone care to take bets tonkas won’t see 2019 in uk service?

Second is the army getting into this 3-d printing lark spares on vehicle fleets must be easier to certify that aircraft bit or is it still not economical enough for car parts?

January 7, 2014 6:24 pm

The Ride of the Valkyries, for this? Seriously!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKcpZJwZAPM#t=141

Of course, their main purpose is sniffing out under volcano lairs.

Gloomy Northern Boy
January 7, 2014 11:41 pm

Splendid – another way for we technological incompetents to bounce all over the place without rhyme or reason! But I am sure the others will be very happy…

Ham-fisted and Gloomy

East_Anglian
January 8, 2014 12:24 pm

UK a Global Power:

http://www.trendingcentral.com/rule-britannia-britain-still-second-strongest-global-power-world-says-study/

Interesting article. Note that Military Reach is one of the criteria. Which as many have said on here – take away the scaremongering and look at the capability that we actually have.

SomewhatRemoved
January 8, 2014 1:56 pm

Fred,

Excellent. I absolutely, totally, wholeheartedly believe that this 3D printing malarkey is the absolute way forwards for defence procurement. So many of our components are no longer in production, simple things like weatherdeck switches, TELEX components and control cards for diesels. Defence equipment is procured to last 30-50 years; companies that make this frequently don’t survive that long. If the MOD gets on and starts to patternise some of these unique items, we can manufacture our own again (or at least get a company sub-contracted to start patternising the bits).

The future is bright. Let’s hope the MOD sees it and, well, seizes it!

CheshireCat
January 8, 2014 3:34 pm

I know it’s not a new thought, but reading articles like the one below from Navy News, I can’t helping thinking what a huge bonus the three new OPV’s would be to the Fleet if the Rivers could be retained for Fishery Protection and these ships employed as ‘regional’ minor warships for standing tasks such as APT(N) and Op Atlanta, which are currently gapped by precious RFA assets:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2014/January/08/140108-Wave-Knight-Drugs-Bust

Similarly, our current running sores of the Falklands and Gibraltar could benefit from a slightly stronger presence, but one that is not a full blown warship, due to their scarcity and also the cries of militarisation that there presence would inevitably generate.

A slightly more ‘warry’ OPV such as BAE Systems Khareef Class, fitted with the 76mm Oto Melera and for if not originally with CAMM (Sea Ceptor is such an awful name!), would be perfect for such roles, and would allow the release of the RFA’s for their intended purposes, which they are currently gapping.

Whilst I appreciate there are real manpower challenges to introducing three even minor warships into the incredibly lean Royal Navy, but employed in the right areas these ships could have an impact way beyond they’re size!

An optimistic thought for the start of 2014 atleast!

TED
January 8, 2014 9:30 pm

@TD

I may be blind but… Can we have a dedicated space for open threads so its easier to find them please. If we havent got one already :D

mr.fred
January 8, 2014 10:30 pm

SomewhatRemoved,

Much is made of the capabilities of additive manufacturing, but there are things it cannot do.
At the moment, it cannot produce electronic components. It cannot temper metals so spring steel is out. Only certain alloys are practical. When you are isolated (remote manufacture) you are restricted by the amount of feedstock and the different types of feedstock. Moreover, each machine is typically limited to a type of material and certainly can’t mix plastic and metal in one build.

What it does allow is general purpose feedstock, less waste of the stock and the ability to build is limited to the size of the build area rather than the size of the stock material.

In certain applications, the ability of additive manufacturing to build geometry that cannot be built any other way means that very highly optimised parts can be built with minimal waste. It isn’t the cheap option though.

SomewhatRemoved
January 8, 2014 11:44 pm

Fred,

The latest research I’ve seen in open media includes the ability to print wallpaper with LED’s incorporated into it, and more exotic items besides.

You’re right in that the technology is in its early stages but the pace of development is already ramping up. If the US military, and dare I say it the RAF, can see the benefits now then why on earth are we waiting? The value of being ahead of this game is immense. Waiting until this technology matures is an invitation to be left behind – we need to grow experience in the field. If this was something risky then of course one should wait, but the weight of evidence says this is the future and it is happening right now.

As usual though we’ll end up waiting because there’s no ready money to be had to invest. Allegedly.

DavidNiven
January 9, 2014 12:45 am

SomewhatRemoved,

I listened recently to a BBC radio programme on 3D printing, and among one of the guests was (I think a Dutch) architect who’s company were envisioning printing buildings on site. An idea they had taken from a bloke who had suggested using the technique to construct bases on the Moon and Mars.

Imagine the expeditionary capabilities of printing a Bastion equivalent.

wf
January 9, 2014 10:16 am
DavidNiven
January 9, 2014 10:34 am

Thanks TD,

I missed that one, I think Somewhat is right when he says 3D printing is something the armed forces should be getting into. I’m no bean counter but what would the cost difference be in printing a simple part in country as opposed to shipping one in from the UK, plus the reduction in pressure on the supply chain. Rather than ordering a new handguard for a rifle the armourer just prints one out of an ISO and the replen is a 1T bag of whatever materials it uses once a month.

I can envision 3D printing being pretty handy for REME and RE units.

Zaitsev
January 9, 2014 11:05 am

@DavidNiven Also i would have thought spair parts on board ships

DavidNiven
January 9, 2014 11:19 am

@Zaitsev

Yeah, to be honest it has the potential to revolutionise the supply chain.

Instead of deploying with wagon loads of spares you just deploy with one/two of most of your consumables, such as coolant hoses and gaskets etc. And when one is taken off the shelf a message is wireless sent to the printer that adds it to the list of things to print and just gets on with it, next day delivery. You keep spares to a minimum and the lead times are reduced along with the transportation costs, plus equip is turned around faster.

You could even use a drone to deliver it to a PB, similar to Amazons proposal.

(I think I may be getting a haed of myself now)

CheshireCat
January 9, 2014 11:49 am

Further to my earlier post, it’s interesting to read the difference in intended roles for the the 3 OPV’s between the original MOD statement and the article in December’s Desider:

MOD Statement 06.11.13:
‘The ships are expected to replace the current, smaller River Class vessels, HM Ships Tyne, Severn and Mersey, which have been policing the UK’s waters since 2003, but a final decision will be taken in the next strategic defence and security review.’

December Desider Article:
‘The new ships, which will be built by BAE Systems at it’s shipyards on the Clyde, will play a key role in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations.’

A very distinct difference from fishery protection patrols, and much more in line with the idea of regional minor warships.

I guess this may well just be sloppy journalism, or perhaps a glimpse into the Royal Navy’s aspirations/real intentions for these ships. Either way this could potentially be some really good news for the Royal Navy (the first bit for many) years, and could also be viewed as being in line with the CDS’ stated aim before Christmas that the Royal Navy should receive an increased share of the defence budget following the draw down in Afghanistan.

Definitely worth keeping an eye on!

Brian Black
January 9, 2014 1:03 pm

CheshireCat, this extract is from the same 6th November MoD statement that you quoted. The section that you quote from the article is clearly lifted directly from the MoD statement; not sloppy journalism at all.

“The new ships will be built by BAE Systems at their shipyards on the Clyde in a deal that will sustain jobs in the UK’s warship-building industry, and will play a key role in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations.”

mickp
January 9, 2014 1:19 pm

@CheshireCat

I think its potentially more sloppy procurement and lack of clear strategy than sloppy journalism. The enhanced OPVs (if they are on the lines of the BAE 90m version) are indeed more suitable for “a key role in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations”, albeit not entirely with no small hanger for a Lynx. Even without that though they are over spec’d for fishery patrols. If they do replace the 3 smaller Rivers then either fisheries patrol goes or these 3 vessels potter around the North sea, neither of which seems a runner. I’m strongly in favour of an enhanced OPV class, no gold plating but fit for purpose i.e. “a key role in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations” – and add ‘pure patrol / intelligence gathering’ into that. But we should still maintain a shorter legged UK EEZ patrol / fisheries function

mickp
January 9, 2014 2:06 pm

@Cheshirecat – I think this is a function of the ships being built to fill a production gap rather than clear ‘strategic’ thinking. BAE 90m OPVs will be quite suited for “a key role in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations.” They don’t need gold plating although the lack of a lynx hanger could compromise their usefulness e.g. on counter piracy. Either way they would be wasted on fisheries duties – if they do replace the Rivers, they can’t do both roles.

Hence – keep rivers for fisheries / EEZ work and ensure there 3 new boats are made use of further afield. I’m sure the centre funnel could be split left and right to get a small Lynx hanger in there. Make sure it has at least 3x30mm seahawk sigmas or preferably a slightly bigger main gun (BAE 40mm or 57mm) and 2 30mms. No more fightly than that

Paul R
January 9, 2014 2:16 pm

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outgoing_German_defence_minister_in_parting_shot_at_France_Britain_999.html

“Germany’s former defence minister on Wednesday took an unusually undiplomatic parting shot at allies France and Britain, saying Berlin had met its responsibilities when it came to overseas military operations.”

More typical stuff from Germany, it prefers only to dish out advice, instructions and criticism, it won’t take any itself.

Challenger
January 9, 2014 2:16 pm

@CheshireCat

Well if they have any sense then they will fit them out in either a Amazonas or HTMS Krabi style, scrape together the manpower and find the modest amount money needed to keep them in service in addition to the Rivers.

I won’t hold out much hope though. It’s far too sensible!

CheshireCat
January 9, 2014 3:07 pm

I was thinking more of the Khareef Class that BAE have constructed 3 of for Oman:

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159220/top-of-the-class-handover-for-oman

Whilst strictly a corvette (shhh!), it is a 99m version of the Amazonas Class, stretched to accommodate a hangar for a lynx and room for VLS and the Oto Melara turret at the bow.

As I noted earlier the hangar and the turret would be enough to start with, with the space for VLS being more than adequate to accommodate CAMM should this be deemed necessary or when funding is available.

To me this seems a perfect platform, so as you say absolutely no chance of it happening!

Chris.B.
January 9, 2014 3:55 pm

Before people get too excited about 3D printing, there are limits to what can be done with it, especially in terms of taking a 3D printer with you.

Jackstaff
January 9, 2014 3:57 pm

@CC, BB, et al.

I suspect the “vital role” stuff (though potentially true depending on deployment and the kit provided) is media patter for this decision’s role in the Coalition’s schizophrenic relationship with both Scotland and BAE Shipbuilding.

However, if they want to do something really useful with these, bung on decent sensors
and a 76mm up front, and run them thus: one as FIGS, one in Gib territorial waters, one in rest/refit. (IIWK — If I Were King — the one at Gib would not just be pointing its gun at Guardia Civil cigarette boats, it’d be protecting floating prepo of heavy Army kit in that lovely harbour.) Then Clyde becomes flag for the Fisheries Squadron and the Rivers carry on normal jogging against the perfidious Faroese ;)

davidNiven
January 9, 2014 4:27 pm

‘Not very good at printing hoses, or light bulbs or hydraulic cylinders I would suspect either!’

I know there are limitations at the moment, but I would of thought that fan belts and gaskets, pretty much every switch and handle, dashboard etc within the interior of veh’s would be possible even up to a point levers and gear sticks.

Bushes would probably be easy to produce as well.

mainly the small commodities that are ordered over and again because it was never fitted or did not arrive within a week so was re demanded.

Trust me Afghan is awash with small parts for veh that were demanded more than once and now gathering dust in a PB ISO. What was the cost of shipping that small door handle out to a PB to not be needed or used. What would the reduction in shipping cost be to a campaign such as Herrick if 10% of your small parts were produced there and the materials were partially refined bulk orders.

What would the consequence be to the campaign if a veh was lost in a convoy that was carrying 20 tonnes of raw materials that could be quickly reordered rather than an ISO of manufactured parts. What would the savings in part costs be if it was ordered and produced in country with no waste and delivered and fitted in days.

As long as the materials are of spec and its uses are limited to tested products I can see no reason not to investigate further.

Jackstaff
January 9, 2014 4:40 pm

Boss,

Good point about the nature of warranty with this technology. If ID and production are by separate entities they absolutely will hot-potato fault until kingdom come. As with everything digitised copyright and piracy will get interesting too.

On the earlier topic of OPVs (can we just call them patrol ships? Although with the Rivers being fisheries ships first and foremost, the term “cutter” would be entirely appropriate) I’d like to see them as Lochs, pour encourager les Jocks. That also saves a Flower-class for whatever MHPC turns out to be :)

January 9, 2014 4:54 pm

These new OPVs not getting a hanger? That’s a bit of a bummer.

mickp
January 9, 2014 5:33 pm

@Phil if they are a straight lift from the Amazonas / Krabi designs I don’t think either have hangers. I would have thought they need them if they are to be used for piracy patrols etc, unless they rely on an attendant RFA to carry the help. That can’t be a Bay! I’m not bothered about space of CAMM / AShM or any thing fancy, just a decent all round gun fit, ideally with a main gun that offers CIWS type options so we can send it to modest threat areas – either BAE 40mm, BAE 57mm, Strales 76mm (pick on and make it our standard fit secondary ship gun), a couple of 30mms on the beams and if we have a hanger some remote gun on top of that to cover the rear end. I like Jackstaffs idea for FIGs and moving Clyde back to the UK. Personally I’d base 2 in FI (much sea to cover and SG also – little need for anything bigger to visit other than irregularly), Clyde can lead fisheries and pay the odd trip to Gib and the other is around for separate tasking. As regards Gib, I’d rather we had some mighty tough tug boat with a few GPMGs on. Don’t need anything fancy, it doesn’t escalate unrealistically and a strong tug can’t half dent a shiny Guardia boat in the small waters

Mark
January 9, 2014 5:42 pm

You can buy them on Amazon if you fancy a go!!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/CUBIFY-CUBE-PRINTER-PRICE-QUALITY-Silver/dp/B00BLBZESA

Why would warranty be an issue, surely the oem would direct which parts are available to be 3-d printed and in aerospace anyway your “facility”, materials and operators would hold FAA / easa certification or military equivalents to produce the parts and install it. As is the case for replacement parts, repairs and overhauls today.

Mark
January 9, 2014 5:53 pm

Maybe uae called off the typhoon bid cause someone is offering a lot of tech transfer.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140108/DEFREG04/301080025/France-Ready-Share-Submarine-Know-How-GCC

Challenger
January 9, 2014 7:20 pm

RE: OPV’s

If I was putting money on it id guess they are going to be based on the Amazonas class, or at an outside chance be a kind of modified River like the Krabi.

They would really need a hangar for any kind of forward based ops, if they relied on facilities provided by another ship then it would really defeat the point of using them to free up other assets.

If having a hangar means a larger design like the Khareef then so be it, but costs need to be kept down and that means a basic radar and 30-76mm guns only. Provisional space for CAMM and AShM is good enough. Without all the bells and whistles the basic design would still be fairly cheap.

For what it’s worth I’d order 4 and stick 2 in the S.Atlantic (with Clyde joining the Fisheries Squadron at home), 1 in the Caribbean and 1 in the Indian Ocean.

CheshireCat
January 9, 2014 10:50 pm

I’m sure I read somewhere that the Khareefs were c.£120 million a piece, it would be interesting to know what the monies under the TOB with BAE Systems is as that is what is setting the budget.

Have to say the Khareefs are good looking ships and I would be delighted to see a few of them flying the White Ensign . . .perhaps they could be the start of a more balanced force and inform the design of the MHPC.

As ever, here’s hoping!

mickp1
January 9, 2014 11:15 pm

The latest BMT Venator 110 design looks good also – but possibly a bit fighter than the earlier concept which seemed suited more to the MHPC concept.

We can however dream – I think Challenger is possibly right and like is deployment plan, but I remain to be convinced they’ll have hangers (even though the logic fails if they do not)

Challenger
January 9, 2014 11:20 pm

@CheshireCat

£120 million a pop sounds like too much when we consider that a River class cost something like £20 million only 10 years ago. I’d hope the Khareef would be significantly cheaper without any of it’s major weapons systems and with a simpler radar/electronic suit, but I fear it would still be too expensive. Whatever is produced needs to be more in the£50-70 million a ship price-range.

Challenger
January 9, 2014 11:24 pm

P.S

Actually considering the Khareef is armed with Mica SAM and Exocet AShM I’m not really sure any significant savings could be made on a RN version.

Anyone know if a class based on HTMS Krabi would have the space for a Lynx sized hangar on the back?

Mickp
January 10, 2014 12:17 am

@challenger- am I right in thinking river are 70m, amazonas are 80m, Clyde is 80m and Krabi is 90m. If so that does mean the new Opvs will be 90m as I think one of the releases said 10 m longer than existing ( ie Clyde) or 80m being 10 m longer than River?

Ie will we get amazonas or Krabi?

I would have thought from pictures if the stack was split a small hanger would fit between. I thought there was a bae opv that had this arrangement but can’t recall where I saw it

Mickp
January 10, 2014 12:31 am

Re my last post, the protector class opv for NZ are 85m and manage a small hanger between the funnels

A friend of Mr Gladstone
January 10, 2014 7:18 am
CheshireCat
January 10, 2014 8:33 am

Mick

You’re absolutely right that it was mentioned in one of the early statements that the ships will be 90m long, with space for embarked forces and more ISO’s on deck, so it would seem almost certain that it will be a version of the Amazonas class, particularly when you consider they’re to cut the first steel this year!

I guess with the Khareef I was just hoping that the Royal Navy could take full advantage of this unintended ‘gift horse’ rather than ending up with three ships that have no real teeth or purpose, and which as a result might even end up being considered a drain on scarce resources.

I’ll stay optimistic at this stage though!

is it just me or do the French design some really ugly vessels?

Challenger
January 10, 2014 5:25 pm

I agree that the Venator, like the Khareef is a bit too ‘fighty’ for what the RN wants/needs with it’s OPV’s, especially in a tough economic climate when price and crew requirements matter even more than usual.

It’s interesting to speculate on MHPC. With RN OPV’s potentially being replaced by more dedicated vessels and a target date of 2028 for when we need to start phasing out the Mine-hunter fleet I’d say the hope for a one-stop modular class is fading, at least put on hold for the next 20-30 years whilst another generation of warships comes and goes.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Echo’s got a specialised successor at some point in the far future, derivatives of the River’s soldier on and whatever replaces the Hunt’s/Sandown’s is at least intially limited to around 8 ships without much of a multi-role capability.

Mark
January 11, 2014 9:26 am

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing39s-challenger-based-maritime-surveillance-aircraft-nears-first-394743/

The MSA won’t be as capable as the P-8. But it will cost around $55 million to $60 million, roughly one-third of the P-8’s price, according to Field.

Though the demonstrator is a Boeing-owned Challenger 604, future aircraft will be based on Bombardier’s updated Challenger 605. It will have a range of about 2,500nm (4,630km) and an eight-to-nine hour endurance.

The base version of the MSA will be manned by two pilots and three system operators, and will be offered with a Selex ES Seaspray 7300 maritime surveillance radar and a FLIR Systems Star Safire 380 electro-optical and infrared sensor.

Options include two additional crew stations and equipment like satellite communications and a side-looking airborne radar (SLAR), says Field.

January 11, 2014 9:57 am

Can anyone define what the requirements are for a UK MPA?

I mean in terms of range, endurance, and patrol area coverage?

What are the nominal detection ranges for MAD, EO/IR and surface search radar?

I just get the feeling that we have a lot of coastline and the above Chal604/605 would mean we’d need to buy loads more airframes to cover our water.

Dunservin
January 11, 2014 10:38 am

@Simon

I’m sure someone will be along to answer your question more specifically but, in ASW terms, I believe the Royal Navy needs an aircraft that can loiter as long as possible and can sanitise large areas (e.g. in the GIUK gap or South Atlantic) or search, localise and kill submarines over as great an area as possible, often far from base, MAD is a useful tool in certain circumstances but would be employed in conjunction with other techniques including laying and monitoring sonobuoys/sonobuoy patterns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonobuoy#Operation

A sonobuoy (a portmanteau of sonar and buoy) is a relatively small (typically 5 inches or 13 centimetres, in diameter and 3 ft or 91 cm long) expendable sonar system that is dropped/ejected from aircraft or ships conducting anti-submarine warfare or underwater acoustic research.

Theory of Operation

The buoys are ejected from aircraft in canisters and deploy upon water impact. An inflatable surface float with a radio transmitter remains on the surface for communication with the aircraft, while one or more hydrophone sensors and stabilizing equipment descend below the surface to a selected depth that is variable, depending on environmental conditions and the search pattern. The buoy relays acoustic information from its hydrophone(s) via UHF/VHF radio to operators on board the aircraft…

– Active sonobuoys emit sound energy (pings) into the water and listen for the returning echo before transmitting—usually range and bearing—information via UHF/VHF radio to a receiving ship or aircraft. The original active sonobuoys pinged continuously after deployment for a predetermined period of time. Later, Command Activated Sonobuoy System (CASS) sonobuoys allowed the aircraft to trigger pings (or buoy scuttling) via a radio link. This evolved into DICASS (Directional CASS) in which the return echo contained bearing as well as range data.

– Passive sonobuoys emit nothing into the water, but rather listen, waiting for sound waves (for instance, power plant, propeller or door-closing and other noises) from ships or submarines, or other acoustic signals of interest, to reach the hydrophone. The sound is then transmitted via UHF/VHF radio to a receiving ship or aircraft…

This information is analysed by computers, acoustic operators and TACCOs to interpret the sonobuoy information.

Active and/or passive sonobuoys may be laid in large fields or barriers for initial detection. Active buoys may then be used for precise location. Passive buoys may also be deployed on the surface in patterns to allow relatively precise location by triangulation. Multiple aircraft or ships monitor the pattern either passively listening or actively transmitting to drive the submarine into the sonar net. Sometimes the pattern takes the shape of a grid or other array formation and complex beamforming signal processing is used to transcend the capabilities of single, or limited numbers of, hydrophones.

Many years ago, I had a trip around the bay in an old Nimrod MR1 from RAF St Mawgan. Even then, the aircraft and its hospitable crew had an impressive range of capabilities and it was the only occasion I have ever seen someone open a window in a jet to take photographs; rather unnerving at the time. The food was particularly good and it took the entire patrol to consume it.

Mark
January 11, 2014 10:43 am

Simon

I would say this could be seen as an aircraft with comparable performance/capability with the s3 viking only using modern sensors and the p8 mission system. The baseline configuration is the same as the danish airforce challenger mpa one of which has just returned operation ocean shield

JamesF
January 11, 2014 12:03 pm
Mark
January 11, 2014 12:08 pm

There’s been a graphics update for those of use using iPads looks gd

SomewhatRemoved
January 11, 2014 12:42 pm

Simon,

Worth checking the TD archives for the answer to your question, there have been many good debates on this point.

Simply put, an MPA is anything you want it to be and it depends what you want to do with it. We’re not that interested in patrolling our coastline – it’s not like there is much of a threat except from criminal activities and illegal immigration, and that comes mostly off the Northern European coast (or inside trucks through the Chunnel).

What the UK needs is something long ranged to meet our commitment to provide SAR cover over the North Atlantic (one of the busiest sailing routes), and provide a long ranged area search/deterrent capability to ensure the safety of the UK SSBN force from Russian submarines. No, I’m not stuck in the Cold War – we still have a sub on patrol 24/7 and it’s weapons are pointed towards Moscow, just as a small proportion of theirs are still pointed at us. Until the need for CASD goes away (requiring unilateral UK/US/RU/FR nuclear disarmament) we need the SSBN’s and we need the aircraft that can protect, or at least deter them.

The emerging requirement in the UK Armed Forces is for a multi-sensor ASW platform that can provide effective defence against the SSK threat in the Middle East, not something we were originally scaled to do but now are much more capable with Merlin/S2087. But a sustainable patrol capability capable of keeping the submariner’s head down and finding him when he thinks he is unobserved is very necessary, which is why so many US P3’s are operating east of Suez. In this case the need for a capable asset dictates that it has to be long ranged, because we have denied ourselves the opportunity to acquire a carrier based capability (also applies to EW and AEW but there you go). Such a platform could operate very effectively in support of ground forces, as modern radars have over-land capabilities (as proven by the Searchwater 2000 in Iraq and Afghanistan) as well as provide targeting by observing targets with modern EO devices (as we did NGS in Libya). A long-ranged ASW asset is pointless if it cannot attack the targets it is meant to find, so weapons carriage is necessary and yes, as you pointed out, you need a lot of sonobuoys as well (over 100 for a typical mission; Nimrods used to get through up to 300 but then we used to be world leaders in ASW, pity that’s been thrown away).

If money was no object a P8 force would fit the bill – modern, capable, the only option for us. Money is an object, but I think we will end up with some P8’s anyway. A sensible individual would also buy something smaller and more flexible such as the C-295 to complement it. Someone with no idea about what they’re talking about would press for a mixed fleet of UAV’s, blimps, basically anything that stops the RN acquiring something a) useful and b) expensive when it could be spent on resurrecting a thousand forgotten cap badges to wander aimlessly around the world looking for someone to fight. Or, of course, c) anything that flies that the RAF doesn’t own.

JamesF
January 11, 2014 1:29 pm

Slightly off subject, but are we certain that new MPAs will be operated by the RN? I though the RN had taken over responsibility for ASW because the RAF doesn’t have any aircraft, while RAF C-130s still provide long-range SAR cover. I would imagine if we did get MPAs they will be operated by the RAF, probably alongside the rest of the ISTAR fleet from Waddington. Am I off track?

January 11, 2014 2:02 pm

Dunservin, SomewhatRemoved,

Thanks. I’ve gone through the MPA/no-MPA argument a couple of times and am still on the fence. Although I appreciate your views (and APATS’ in the past). I won’t go over it again, but instead I’ll pick up on our SAR commitment.

I think it’s reasonable to assume a 20nm detection range of a lifeboat/raft with something like SW2000 or AN/APS-116. So we can “cover” a 40nm “stripe” as we fly. With a 2500nm range this means a coverage of about 100,000 square nm per sortie. We have a SAR area of 1.25 million square nm to cover, implying (to me) that we need about 12 aircraft to do this.

Given that the P-3 is only $36m a pop it’s a no brainer, cheap-as-chips decision (£300m).

Now, if we went for the P-8 ($275m a pop) it becomes a way more difficult decision (£2b). Even if the P-8 can search twice as far (quadruple the radar power) it’ll still cost us a cool billion.

mike
January 11, 2014 2:29 pm

@ JamesF

Would the RN have the funds? Looking away from the huge cost of T26, T23, QE class, Astute and Successor (without looking at the RFA and support…). When Crowsnest is still unfunded and the CHF needing funds for marinisation of the Merlin HC3’s… and the introduction of Wildcat?
Unlikely.

More likely a joint force, like the Sentinel R1 – mixed crews, considering the RAF’s expertise in the area has been carefully spread around, from seedcorn sending personnel as far afield as New Zealand, to sending AWC staff to the US, to looking at P8 hardware in Baltimore… not to mention the inevitable ISTAR mission creep such assets will be used for.

Your final sentences are on track, for now… but who knows what will happen come ’15, but at the moment the RN’s small aviation arm has a lot to aim for with limited funds to go it alone on such a large fixed wing asset.

I dont agree with some musing that SDSR’15 will bring a few ‘new/renewed’ assets… may be more like “business as usual” with a painful focus on the Army.

Dunservin
January 11, 2014 2:41 pm

@James F

“…are we certain that new MPAs will be operated by the RN? I though the RN had taken over responsibility for ASW because the RAF doesn’t have any aircraft, while RAF C-130s still provide long-range SAR cover. I would imagine if we did get MPAs they will be operated by the RAF, probably alongside the rest of the ISTAR fleet from Waddington. Am I off track?

The RN and RAF have long shared responsibilty for ASW. The RN has manned ASW surface ships, hunter-killer SSKs and SSNs and a long line of smaller shipborne fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, including helos with their own dipping sonar. The RAF has manned larger land-based LRMP (Long Range Maritime Patrol aircraft in old-speak) with some useful cross-posting of RN personnel. It doesn’t really matter who mans any new MPA provided they are effective ASW assets available for tasking when required.

SomewhatRemoved
January 11, 2014 2:57 pm

The SAR task isn’t about searching 1.25 million square miles of ocean for a liferaft. If someone has an incident it will be signalled by one of the many GMDSS means. The ability to reach that location, not only to air drop supplies or liferafts but also to track the vessel/casualties means they can then vector in nearby shipping to assist. If they go down without a peep on anything, then a) they’re not SOLAS compliant and deserve what they get, and b) it happens – the sea is big, wild and dangerous. Know what you’re getting into.

Okay, so maybe we don’t have to do it but if we give up on the SAR task, it is yet another small element of prestige we are throwing away. Sooner or later we’ll be renowned for nothing.

SomewhatRemoved
January 11, 2014 3:05 pm

And frankly, yes, the RN should be getting new kit left, right and chelsea. We are a maritime nation, dependent upon, raised and shaped by and experts on the sea. Our interests lie thousands of miles away and our shipping routes are vulnerable. We have successfully exercised maritime influence for hundreds of years both in peace and in war, and seem to be the only service that at its core understands anything beyond the application of violence, and we have done it despite the deepest cuts to any service and being bottom of the pile for over ten years in Defence planning assumptions. So yes, lets go back to a maritime strategy. That would be nice.

Dunservin
January 11, 2014 4:43 pm

@SR

“…and seem to be the only service that at its core understands anything beyond the application of violence…”

Don’t you go promoting the complementary benefits of soft power around here. You’ll get a right good kicking. ;-)

wpDiscuz
↓