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!


by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest



Hmmm. Genuine breakthrough or a configuration that interferes with the measuring device?

"Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive":


NASA's paper:


Skylon to launch a package, EMDrive to power it? Or, as the article suggests:

In hindsight, it may turn out to be another great British invention that someone else turned into a success.


Apparently the negative control produced thrust too, which kind of invalidates the experiment, though maybe not the entire theory.

Slightly more detailed write up; http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/dont-buy-stock-in-impossible-space-drives-just-yet/


'With Excalibur N5, a 5 inch/127mm variant of the projectile, Raytheon is setting its sights on the maritime environment. A live fire demonstration of the Excalibur N5 is planned for later this year.'

Excalibur Ib cleared for full rate production



As the header picture of this month's Open Thread seems to indicate yet another air centric month :-) ....

Another air force to select F35?

The Belgian Ministry of Defense has formally launched its Air Combat Capability Program.

This project will replace the remaining 54 F16 fighters (4 squadrons on 2 air bases) of the Air Component of the Belgain Armed Forces in the early twenties.

As a first step an offcial Request for Information has been issued to 5 potential bidders. As Belgium apparently prefers a state-to-state buy, the RFI is adressed to State Agencies rather than manufacturers:

the Joint Program Office (USA) for the Lockheed-Martin F35 LightningII

the Navy Integrated Program Office (USA) for the Boeing F/A18-E/F Super Hornet

the Direction Generale de l’Armement (France) for the Rafale from the Rafale International consortium (Dassault, Thales, Safran)

the Swedish Defence and Security Export Agency (Sweden) for the Saab JAS-39 Gripen

the MoD (UK) for the Eurofighter

This is the start of a process that should produce an order for the first aircraft towards the end of 2018.

Defence Minister Pieter De Crem earlier spoke about 40 or so new aircraft to replace the F16’s. That number must allow the Air Component to maintain its current ambition level: 2-4 aircraft for QRA and upto 10 aircraft on a more or less enduring foreign deployment.

This whole project no doubt will be on the table when political parties currently trying to form a federal goverment after the June elections tackle defense related issues. Although all parties involved in principle would not be against such a buy, it will be extremely difficult to find the money for this project. Under EU scrutiny, Belgium has to make an important effort to balance the budget (currently deficit of around 3% of GDP) and to reduce its public debt (currently at >100% of GDP). The current level of the defence budget simply does not have the potential to absorb the 4B or so Euro for the F16 replacement over a 8 to 10 year period. To illustrate, the amount earmarked for investments in the 2014 budget is around 250M Euro. On top of that, other big defence projects are looming on the horizon (e.g. the replacement of the 2 frigates of the Naval Component, also in the early twenties).

Within the Air Force the preferred choice apparently is for the F35. F35 also seems to be the favourite of the outgoing Minister of Defense. This would also allow for Belgium to co-operate with the Netherlands and to go for a closer integration of both air forces (similar to what is already done for the Navies of both countries). Holland plans to order 38 F35’s. That number sheds some doubt over the ambition of Belgium to purchase 40. Holland is about 50% bigger than Belgium in a number of areas (population, GDP, ...). A Belgium buy of say 26 F35’s would make more sense for a total combined and integrated fleet of about 64 aircraft: e.g. one Dutch squadron, one Belgian squadron and one combined squadron/OCU/maintenance pool where both contribute pro-rata. A reduced project budget of about 2.5B Euro for those 26 aircraft also makes it a bit more feasible.

There is another reason why the F35 may be the preferred choice and why other contenders do not make much chance getting the deal. Under NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Agreement the belgian F16’s are earmarked and fitted to deliver B61 tactical nuclear bombs, together with units in Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey. In todays world, this is more of a political than a military statement, but still an important aspect of NATO policies. In the future, the F35A will be the only aircraft adapted to deliver the B61 bomb. Selecting another aircraft thus also means unilaterally ending the ¨solidarity¨ between NATO partners. That will not be appreciated. No wonder Holland selected the F35 after not much of a competition (Italy and Turkey also selected the F35 and Germany still has some time to decide until Tornado bows out).

One can also wonder why yet another country has to select a first-day ¨kick the door¨ capability. Of course, solidarity and all that, but maybe NATO (or Europe for that matter) is better off with some countries opting for serious second-day capabilities (e.g. combat helicopters of more numerous cheapish figher bombers such as the Korean A50). Still burden sharing, but in different and complementary areas. A meaningfull contribution in a few areas instead of a small contribution in several areas.


Pssh, crane centric I think you mean. They are brill those little things.

Excalibur for the RN. Yes please. Apparently type 26 will have 127mm as opposed to the 113 on the T45. Increment III(the self guided one) could make a hell of an anti ship weapon if it ever happens. Shame the RN never got that 155mm. Always thought that was a very sensible idea and would of been in service this year without the SDSR. :(

Can't see us getting the Belgian deal. Think you're right on that one WW. Unless their budget is really tight and we sell the older T1's super cheap for some reason, but in that scenario I can't see us beating out Gripen. I think they'll eek out the F16's until the F35 becomes tenable one way or another.


'Interest Rises in EU Acquisition of Mistrals Sold to Russia'


“It is being discussed in Paris as an option,” Tétreau said. “It is gaining traction in Paris. There are diplomats and politicians in Paris who see that as a possibility.”


At least there's serious discussion. Would prefer a NATO role or a non-military EU role rather than the EDA get them.


@WW I think this is a great time for NATO to have a very serious look at its structure. But I dont think anyone wants particuarly to be AH only or FJ only.

But I think your sort of on the same wavelength as me... even if neither of us know it :D

Never mind army 2020 lets have NATO 2020



Good luck to Enterprise, but it should really be a proper warship :(


Perhaps Topman or others can shed some light on this but:

Five years in training to reach a frontline squadron? That seems a little excessive.


@WW: If Russia is the big "new" threat, would Belgium be better off with an order of Eurofighters for QRA and air superiority? Perhaps, if the Netherlands and Belgium continue with closer defence ties, a joint Eurofighter / F35A structure is also feasible.


There's some interesting articles at http://army.newsdeskmedia.com/home including one by GOC 3 Div identifying the 6 types of operation they need to prepare for, including the associated level of casualty acceptance.


Thanks Obsvr,

A very interesting read, this one in particular got me thinking especially with all the talk of resurgence in the maritime domain.

No easy wars: future conflict at the world’s seams

'Britain’s dilemma is that it is too powerful to hide from conflict but too weak to dominate. It can either engage or disengage, but it cannot occupy the kind of strategic no man’s land into which the government seems to want to withdraw – using the EU as an excuse for future British inaction'

'In fact, the new Joint Forces Command must become far more than a mere proponent – it must drive change and become the core of a British strategic hub that can lead and support missions across a global mission spectrum that covers six domains vital to prevailing in future conflict: air, sea, land, cyber, space and knowledge. Fail, and sooner or later the big war will come and Britain will lose it.'

I hope they are listening.


Oooh interesting journal. Cheers Obsvr.


As so the old game begins again anyone for an sr71?


The U.S. plane had been flying in international airspace, conducting an electronic eavesdropping mission on the Russian military, when the Russians took the unusual action of beginning to track it with land-based radar. The Russians then sent at least one fighter jet into the sky to intercept the aircraft, the U.S. official said Saturday.

The spy plane crew felt so concerned about the radar tracking that it wanted to get out of the area as quickly as possible, the official said. The quickest route away from the Russians took them into Swedish airspace. The U.S. official acknowledged that was done without Swedish military approval.


HMS Enterprise evacuating Britons from Libya:



State of the art!

Stand by for all the negativity...



Those sound effects were bad, the missiles massive and the side door hangar an ergonomic nightmare, but the ice cream was shocking! that was definitely no 'Mr Whippy' thats for sure. ;-)


The County class destroyers were good looking ships though!


Got to love that "computer ' music in the background

Brit Pathe just keeps on giving ....

" Action Navy "


ToC don't read too much into it, India is a place where such allegations are tossed about on a daily basis and treated as fact. By now, India has blacklisted most of the world's weapons manufacturers without trial. I don't think they are going to modernize any time soon at this rate.


In this case RR admitted guilt back in December. Just disappointing to be honest.

On the topic of Indian modernisation, the VVIP corruption issue is really a shame. They're desperate for non-Russian maritime helicopters and the only real competitors to the Seahawk range are the AW lines (AW101, AW159 and NH90).


@Observer re Indian corruption , they are no worse or better than Anyone else

India has some blossoming industries were projects seem to wither on the vine due to internal political decisions over budget allocation to which state etc. They build their own nukes , both kinds , launch their own home built satellites , build their own aircraft and ships . They could be a major arms supplier if they wanted it bad enough but don't.

It might seem a bit mad but only recently has money been made available to fund solar power to the long term burden of buying diesel for local domestic power generation for home and agricultural use.


On that note, I quite like this solution of theirs to solar power generation:


A double-whammy of elegant innovation.



Nice link on the solar power on top of existing irrigation canals, no valuable land covered over , , no forced land purchase , water retained , existing concrete channel to support the frame work , liner build distributes the power for you. Great piece of innovation which is a great example of what you can do if you have a leader like Modi in charge of a state.Gujarat is the most developed state in India ,all happening under his tenure , perhaps now it will spread to the rest of the country.


Hybrid Air Vehicles news.

HAV304 to start flight trials in May 2015, a little late. Certification to take two years. ITAR lifted on the HAV304 for Airlander 10 development to lead into Airlander 50. US Army being kept informed of developments.


Earlier this year, prior to the round of fund raising being extended, HAV were talking about trials with the MOD before taking the vehicle on a commercial tour of America:


James Bolivar DiGriz

@TOC, @monkey,

The problem is that PV power generation is (currently and certainly in the near future) of marginal utility and that this design makes it even more so.

The price of PV panels has come down due to manufacturing in China (which has driven other manufacturers out of the business) but all the evidence that I have heard is that the quality of these panels is variable to say the least. Also the quoted efficiency of any PV is at optimal conditions, which includes being perfectly (i.e. laboratory) clean, being on or close to the equator and being oriented to get the most sun (typically a bit west of south).

Rainfall (or dust) leaves material on the surface that had reduces the amount of light getting through a so has a measurable impact on the output. Panels that are tilted to face west of south have some chance of the rain and dust falling or blowing off, horizontal ones have a much reduced chance.

Even if the surface is clear, being horizontal means that the impacting sunlight is spread out and so the efficiency drops again.

Then of course you have the common PV problems (most of which also apply to wind power); the expense of building and subsequently maintaining something that is hundreds (thousands?) of time bigger than an equivalent power station; no generation at night and no or little generation when the weather is bad; the problems of connecting intermittent power generation to a distribution grid; the cost of the backup that has to be running but not generating; the environmental damage done in the associated refining & manufacturing processes.



With you on all your points but in terms of panel efficiency variance ,does it matter when you have such huge available surface area to play with , just buy what comes in cheapest ( I understand there is a trade off curve re installation/superstructure costs but bear with me) . The angle thing again for optimum but same again they are close to the equator, the canal goes where it needs to so live with it. In terms of output India is famous for intermittent supply and they alter their working patterns to suit. Regarding cleaning , labour is cheap and with a ready water supply , just look down



You have probably seen this but in your field of interest.


The UHAC can move 3 times the mass of the existing LCAC and beach where they can't including climbing 10' high sea walls . The one in the video is a half scale technology demonstrator. It will have the same plan as the LCAC getting its extra lift from it foam filled tracks and hull.

James Bolivar DiGriz


I understand what you are saying and if the basic PV cells were efficient & reliable then the large area might work okay.

My understanding is that commercial systems are less than 30% efficient and are only that good because they track the sun. Domestic, static, systems (which this essentially is) are less than 20% efficient. Also, from what I have read, cheap PV panels supposedly from the same manufacturer can be excellent (five years w/o a problem) or rubbish (lots failing within a year). So the output could be really quite low, even with a huge area.

Gujarat is c. 20 degrees from the equator which, AFAIUI, is about the limit for system efficiency. I only mentioned that as emphasizing that the quoted efficiency is optimum conditions.

I think that intermittency is a different sort of problem than you are allowing for. Because the grid is a distribution one then (for reasons that I don't understand) it does not cope well with power flowing the 'wrong' way, and this is exacerbated by more power and by more intermittency.

As for cleaning the panels, if there is a thick layer of dust then the canal water would help but will leave a thin layer of scale that impacts on the efficiency.

Solar (& wind) generation are best used when the power is consumed at that location. I know of someone who is doing work in rural South Africa to develop small units with maximum efficiency for villages that won't be on the grid for ages. One of the areas of study is how much efficiency gain can you get from the minimum of manual sun-tracking, and from what I have heard turning the units by hand (again cheap labour) five or six times a day can boost the efficiency from c. 15% to north of 20%.


I have colleagues in Texas who love solar PV, since their biggest daytime use is due to aircon. Not sure we do quite so well, and fitting aircon to homes will make the average greenie puke since they think BO helps squirrels or something :-)


URFC for the latest batch (FY2015 IIRC) of F-35B's were $139. The Pentagon F-35 program office also confirmed that the URFC price includes engines as well as systems in that cost.

That means we're currently looking at £4.5b for 48 F-35B's at the current price. Add UK (not USA!) Program costs to get an idea of UK Program Cost.

If the project can achieve the $85m URFC target (almost certainly an A model price) that is discussed separately in the Australian order, Korean competition and the recent LM press releases, that would mean the F-35B is looking at around $95m-$100m (a guesstimate) or just over £3.2b of our British Pounds. Plus Program Costs.

Maybe plus VAT... ;)

Under the most recent production contract with Lockheed, the department in 2013 agreed to pay $112 million per F-35A, $139 million per F-35B and $130 million per F-35C, DellaVedova said. Those figures, known as unit recurring flyaway costs, include the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency, [DellaVedova ] said.

Interestingly, and this hasn't been widely discussed in the media:

The [US] government has also shifted from bearing all the financial risk in the program to sharing it with Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney, which makes the F135 engine for the single-engine fighter, DellaVedova said in an e-mail. The contractors now cover 100 percent of any cost overruns and 50 percent of concurrency costs, he said.

All emphasis mine.



Toc if the cost of our 48 f35s is guarenteed at that price of 4.5b pounds I'd say buy now. But much more likely you'll need to add a couple of billion to that price.



Regarding failure rates that's is a contractual issue with the OEM, if they are guarantees of 5 years , for instance , and it fails before then over to them.

Regarding cleaning I understand what your saying but inclined at 20deg for max fixed efficiency so run off will occur the rest is down to (very cheap ) elbow grease and whatever techniques that have been developed in the rest of the world. Good access seems to have been provided.

Regarding distributing the power I was thinking more of the existing local grid feeding no more than a village or to nearby to the canal. Much of rural India has no electricity but what local diesel generators produce. Except for the larger towns and the cities there is no grid .Tapping off the local length of canal for your needs I would think is the way they go using their existing isolated grid with the existing generators coming on at night only. The next length of canal feeding the next nearby few villages grid etc. The canal network is for rural irrigation not to feed towns and cities their water.

Again it is an interesting idea and if made to work could be expanded globally as a concept , say too California experiencing its worst drought in many years and farmers looking to a federal bailout and fines being imposed on domestic wastage .


James Bolivar DiGriz


"Regarding failure rates that’s is a contractual issue with the OEM"

Well yes, but if there is one failed panel in the middle of a block of, say, 50 this week and you have to take the whole block offline to replace that one panel, then there is another failure somewhere else next week, and so on and so forth, then even if the maker replaces the panels the impact on the system is considerable.

"but inclined at 20deg"

Where do you get that from?

"Regarding distributing the power I was thinking more of the existing local grid feeding no more than a village or to nearby to the canal"

That would make sense to me but from the article:

'Assuming a utilisation of only 10 per cent of the existing canal network of 19,000 km, it is estimated that 2,200 MW of solar power generating capacity'

1,900km and 2,200 MW sounds more like industrial scale generation to me.


@ California Drought.

One of the reasons that California suffers from Water Shortages is that the state refuses to build more Reservoirs.


Although not on the same scale, Yorkshire had a similar problem. The local Water Board solved it by building 3 large reservoirs.



Re the failure rates again its contractual , punitive fees for down time 'should ' be included but this being India ?

Regarding the inclination from the images about that seems to be in place , you set the nominal angle of fixed panels at your latitude.

On the projected output for Gujarat of 2.2Gw again its spread over a state of 200,000 sq km so distributed locally no need to feed into the main grid but could be achieved , on 9th June this year Germany generated over 50% of its power at one point via solar. This is causing them as you said earlier big problems distributing this and is requiring large investment in the grid to 'balance ' this out. France is experiencing similar problems as is large parts of the US.

(one of the reasons hybrid car prices are not coming down is the batteries suppliers competing for materials against vast battery energy storage systems sometimes using the same technology http://www.aegps.com/en/smart-grids/battery-energy-storage/).

This is somewhere India need not visit as yet but hey if it comes up with a cheap solution to that to good for them.


Isn't $139m actually £82m?

Putting 48 of the blighters at just shy of £4b.

What am I missing (apart from a pint of Doom Bar)?


Just gonna chuck this down here again. Anyone know if this is correct, 5 years to get a pilot from Cranwell to a frontline squadron?


I'm all in favour of waiting for more mature software (and someone else to ante up for weapons integration!) but at £82 million per we should bite their hands off. What are we paying for tranche 3A Typhoons - which come without many of the integrated systems of an F35?

I suspect though that some journo has got his sums wrong or gotten the wrong end of the stick.

Edit - @Simon - while your at the bar, I'll have a Speckled Hen. Cheers.


Chrisb 3-4 years is what I had heard in the past topman or mike may know better.

WiseApe Saudi bought 72 typhoons for 4.5b pounds.f35 has less things integrated than on typhoon

All Politicians are the Same


That was the 2007 price, a lot went on after that. the UAE was quoted £6 billion for 60.


While we are at Think Defence, I'm sure that we will all think on that ghastly centenary now only 3 hours away.

I'm sure that we all have family who died in that dreadful conflict which so utterly changed the world. I have two particularly in mind: a great uncle killed commanding a company of the 26th Royal Fusiliers in the 3rd Ypres, and another from my mother's side shot down over Arras. Their particular centenaries I will mark privately, but at 1100 tonight I will blow out my candle in memories of millions.


Ooh count me in for a Doom Bar!

I used a 1.5 exchange rate USD/GBP. I know it's not the current rate, it's just an easier value for ball-park figures.

I'm still unsure about the URFC including engines, it's not the norm for US reporting and this year's SAR lists them separately:

F-35A: $11.7m

F-35B: $28.0m

F-35C: $11.5m

Although at these figures you're close the $96m discussed for an A model in the LRIP 6.

Definitely heartened by the cost overrun covering and concurrency cost sharing with the contractors. Biggest risk now is American cold feet towards their own Program Costs which are much higher than ours in amount terms. Ironically maybe not as high in Program Unit Cost terms!


@ Mark,

Seems like a bloody long time? Granted it's a very complicated job, but even then.



UAE wanted some special things but yes Saudi have asked for a few add ons now and the price has changed.

Korea are taking 40 f35a for 6.8billion dollars in 2018, the likely hood of us getting the b in the same time frame for less than the A they've been offered is remote at best.

ChrisB yep it does.

All Politicians are the Same

@ Mark

I never suggested we would or could but all the signs are encouraging that the prices are going in the right direction and at the 1.69 on offer today the Korean price is very encouraging.



Exchange rate moving in our direction is always a bonus. Ramp rate of the lrip will be buying into is very important in pricing terms (and on certain technical fixes) as were starting run out of time for ordering jets to meet declared IOCs. I find it odd our follow on order for f35 has so far not materialised.


@Challenger - I agree on the County class, a quantum leap in technology, even if it was rapidly overtaken


sorry i missed it first time around. yes 4 years is about right. lots of gaps inbetween each part of training.


HMS Enterprise arrived in Malta:


Edit: re HMS Glamorgan: "...a quantum leap in technology..." - and twin turrets!


Its a rough old place Valleta that we need this to land.

No not nearly, a wonderful people and place.

Malta is the Jewel in the Middle Sea.


"War, Germany, act"


Thought about this scene today which if it ever can be summed up in short simple tv message

Would also say the images of the poppies at the Tower of London is simple stunning and as thought provoking piece of artwork I've seen in a long time.



@mickp & Wiseape

Ah twin turrets, lovely stuff! Were they the last class to get built with them?

The County class were lovely looking vessels but looking back via some internet surfing it's amusing but impressive to see how Heath Robinson Sea Slug, then later Sea Cat and the associated Type 901/965 radars all were.

Not that surprising most the systems and thus the County class themselves were very quickly overtaken by the pace of technological development. I'm sure you could argue that they had barely entered the water before the world moved on.


My 2 Grandfathers were in WW1. I am named after the Scottish one. He volunteered for the Royal Flying Corps. He lied about his age. His parents got him out. He later ended up as a machinegunner.

The other was in the AustroHungarian Army. Became a prisoner of the Russians just as they had their revolution. So the prisoners were freed, as the Russians wanted to fight each other. Meant an epic walk back home through a lawless land full of bandits. Amazingly, he came across his brother also walking home & they looked after each other til they got home.


@ Topman,

Just seems like an awfully long time for someone to spend in training before reaching a frontline squadron. 4 years.


But think of the course modules

Hotel booking advanced level
White socks, for the wearing of
Walking sideways
Advanced moustache fettling
Cinema Usher Skills

Am surprised it only takes 4 years to be honest

All Politicians are the Same

@ Chris B

I know there were choke points and hold overs affecting fast jet training a few years ago but when I joined the RN it took anywhere from 26 months to 32 months between Dartmouth and your first OOW job.
Non grads did extra 3 months at Dartmouth and each class was split into 3 OOW courses starting a month apart which explains the range.

Gloomy Northern Boy

@Thread - Modi; very good for the economy of Gujarat, and maybe for India as well... but I'm a touch concerned about the Hindu sectarianism; not likely to help the World's largest democracy make their Centenary in my view.

Not sure about solar panels...but if the price of photovoltaic tiles can be pushed down, I believe they offer great promise...and if I win the big one on the lottery I'm offering a big cash prize to the first team who come up with a financially viable plan to take a village of all the grids and turn it into an energy producer; and even bigger one in respect of pulling off the same trick in respect of Gloomyville...and personally I'd be happy to see a field or two full of nodding donkeys as part of the solution....

Great War - had one Great Uncle who was in the Imperial Yeomanry in the South African War, and then rejoined and rode with Allenby...and another (estranged) who joined under a false name and disappeared in front of Serre on the first day of the Somme. I shall most certainly remember them regularly over the next four years...

@Simon - I'll have what you are having...do they do scratchings or warm pork pie?



Just passing through!

RNZAF's first new trainers pass through Stanstead on their delivery trip. Anther nine to follow.


And some trip it is - click on the linked map for a bigger picture. Any delivery run that takes in both Reykjavik and Honiara (Solomon Islands) is one to remember for the grandkids.

Thy'll arrive in a couple of weeks and ground crew traininjg will begin. Official handover to NZ isn't until November, Beechcraft probably waiting to see if the NZ government's cheque bounces.

Good illustration of the benefits of buying off the shelf from an active production line. The contract was signed in late Jan this year. In about six months they've been built, given a snazzy black coat of paint and flown out the door. If only our gov't can manage replacement of the maritime surveillance (P-3C) and transport (C130H) fleets in such an efficient manner. Slim hope, sadly.


Any delivery run that takes in both Reykjavik and Honiara (Solomon Islands) is one to remember for the grandkids.

Couldn't anyone get them on a ship ? This is a mental way of using the first XXX hours of serviceable life. Not to mention the, fuel, landing fees and T&S bills for the crew. Just because it can fly doesn't mean it has to !


@ chris b yes it is a long time but its always been a long time. even going back to the war, heavy bomber crews would often spend lots of time inbetween phases of training, 2 + years was common then. Even with a war on, its a difficult training course to manage at the best of times. even when they get on a frontline sqn they still have even more training to get upto CR.


@ TD

Aircrew booking their own hotels? Have you gone mad, the very thought of it!


Still there's a cost to stripping them down and boxing them up, sending them by sea. Then you have to have blokes sent down to NZ from the factory to rebuild and test them when they get there. Plus they are ready when they get there


They conducted a test firing, destroying one of their own weather satellites, in 2007:


It's why projects such as the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node are gaining a lot of traction lately to expand the number and variety of aerial nodes beyond Sentry and similar:


Northrop Grumman equip Global Hawk and the rest of the family (Triton, Euro Hawk) with the system by default:


Although not BACN, the USMC use the Insitu Integrator (RQ-21A Blackjack) to carry communications relays:


Reaper (General Atomics MQ-9) and Watchkeeper (Modified Hermes 450) also carry communications relays:



RPAS seem natural platforms for relays due to their persistence and I can imagine the MOD interest in the likes of HAV304 as well, though going forward we're going to find more ways of protecting these data links viciously.

Slightly Agricultural

@ TD

Aircrew booking their own hotels? Have you gone mad, the very thought of it!

Quite. One of course has a travel clerk for that. Who will promptly use the centrally-mandated travel contract with HRG and ask them to book it, at great cost to the tax payer.

You also forgot "Flight Suits, appropriate wearing of" and "Nicknames, appropriate use of". Which are admittedly very short classes, because the answer is "Constantly, regardless of circumstance".

@Chris B

I can believe 4 years. You'll spend most of the first one playing silly buggers at Cranwell I would imagine, before starting on your actual training. And having sat in a Typhoon cockpit, it could take you every bit that long to get up to speed with the sheer amount of stuff going on in there.


@ TD,

I hear the correct arrangement of a moustache is quite the task for a true artisan.


It's conceivable of course that when they said 4 years, they meant covering 4 different calendar years, while the training itself might have been less than the 48 months that such a phrasing suggests.

@ Topman,

I was reading a few months back some accounts of pilots during the second world war whose training was very extensive. Ground work, theory, navigation and some basic flying here in the UK for several months, before shipping off to Canada or the US to do the more advanced work, then coming back to do conversion. even in wartime like you say there was as much as two years. 4 years now just seems like a very long time (and bloody expensive). Is it beyond us to shortern this perhaps?

@ Slighty Agri,

I can well believe that a Typhoon conversion would take considerable time. I just wonder whether the course could be shortened safely?


@ Chris B

It is a long course it's looked at all the time and no doubt many times in the past. Yet it's still a long course. I know it's being looked at again now. I doubt it will make a huge difference. The typhoon OCU courses are being looked at. More simulators I think will be the answer. For FJ crew I doubt it would be reduced by something dramatic, say a year, a moderate reduction in costs is more likely.


@topman: why not do a Luftwaffe and do your training in the US, or Australia for that matter? Perfect flying weather more often, reduced training time.


I would think the cost of setting up overseas would be larger than the savings in time. There's not that many days of flying lost at, say coningsby. It must cost the GAF a bob or to to have a tonka sqn overseas all the time. Not that I'd knock an overseas tour to the US :) I know about 18 months ago every single post overseas was looked at to reduce them to the very minimum.

All Politicians are the Same


" I know about 18 months ago every single post overseas was looked at to reduce them to the very minimum"

That coincided with the Single Service Chiefs being wheeled in and told that it was no longer acceptable to gap any NATO post.



Interesting, the review I should have said was only RAF wide (that I know of). No doubt a bit of robbing peter to pay paul with regard to NATO posts. Who wheeled them in, SoS?


@Topman: I'm sure there's not many flying days lost by trained pilots, but we are talking trainees here. I'm assuming that means visibility of 5-10km and winds of less than 10 knots, a combination you don't see much outside of summer. Never done any flying outside of the UK, but I can confirm the weather in Arizona is insanely good 330-340 days per year (convenient for parachuting).

All Politicians are the Same

@ Topman

I had heard it was the PM himself. NATO got a bit silly a few years ago, just before the "transformation" went through and all sorts of bids were placed for roles and responsibilities without proper thought as to who or even which service in some cases would take them on.


With basing aircraft overseas for training/conversion... rememberer that you also lack immediate access to attrition replacements, both airframe and aircrew. Having them on home soil means we can surge, much like we did for Libya. Also a longer logistics trail for a type not used, nor any major parts produced, over there.

Then again, would mean instant access to Red/Green/Maple flag and a whole heap for DAC and exercises. But costs would run up... unlike the GAF, we have plenty of sea to train over. Though imo our F-35B conversion unit should stay state-side, tied with the USMC's Fleet replenishment squadron. Means aircrews will get the CAS and Carrier experience.

We had Goose bay in Canada for N.American training, along with NATO, a mere shadow of its former self now.



What level of trainee did you mean, something like elementary training or like the GAF FJ training?


Sounds like bitten off more than they can chew. I've only been on the fringes of NATO postings, seemed to me to be very 'territorial' and any perk/post rather (wierdly) guarded. Seemed very noticeable on exercises,a bit of a divide those from a NATO country and those in a NATO post. I thought it was strange, perhaps just me.


@Topman: I'm referring to the Tucano phase rather than the Hawk phase. I assume once you've completed the former, UK weather is something you should be able to cope with, and indeed, coping with it is part of the training :-)


Conversion in the UK is likely to be at Marham, assuming that becomes the UK's ITC and converted into the European "F-35 Hub". Norway already signed up with Holland, Denmark and Italy in discussion.

Will still have the exchange programs with the USMC, USN and USAF.

Most recent snippets:




OK, I'm not sure how many days are lost at that level and if it would be worth upping sticks to sunny oz/arizona.


@ Topman,

If it's been looked at many times with no significant shift then fair enough.


Think I might have cracked the answer. From a piece last year about the new training stream on the Hawk T.2;

"The four RAF students to graduate were the first to complete the challenging and rewarding new course that downloads many aspects of training from front line aircraft into the UKMFTS provided syllabus.

This includes the teaching of air to air radar and beyond visual range air combat with simulations of advanced missile systems and radars. The students have also experienced realistic air and ground scenarios, simulating sophisticated surface to air missile threats and smart weapons. This training is completed in both flight simulator and live flying sorties.

The combination of state of the art simulation and flying training ensures that trainee pilots will progress to the front line with a far greater degree of training than ever before."

So it seems they're shifting some of the burden for advanced training from the frontline back to the training squadron, which would probably save money in the long run.


@ Chris.B - Re training time for FJ Pilots

Also worth bearing in mind that there maybe limited flight hours per pilot for cost reasons.


@ Topman.

Aye, true.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28666287 Bugger. US Major General killed, German General injured and 14 others.


Did they not talk about shifting the hawk training all to cyprus due to the better weather and hotel accommodation.


Did they not talk about moving the hawk training to Cyprus a while back



Bugger indeed!

Condolences to all...


Probably worth dropping in here:


40 percent reduction in weight over 15-20 years.

I wonder how long it will take to fill the void thus created with additional systems and armour and other sorts of mass.

It seems to me that the US want a one size fits all solution when it might be more sensible to have a number of different options. Light stuff for deployability and heavy stuff for real tough work. Maybe even some medium weight vehicles for robust but deployable, although in my mind medium weight is the result of a light vehicle gotten lazy and fat.


@mr.fred - Reading the article, it looks like they're considering new materials as a way to save weight. Think aerogel only strong!



Yes, I got that.

Suppose I can make a vehicle with the protection of the Abrams but weighing only 40 tonnes. What would stop me (or anyone else) adding 20 tonnes of appliqué armour to protect against side and top-attack weapons?

I think even now one could get an appreciable increase in protection on most legacy vehicles simply by building them using modern materials and manufacturing techniques. However, even if you save weight it will be added back to the limits of the drivetrain.


mr.fred, Kent - ref US going lighter - its a sound move in my opinion (well it would be) but might be a case of 'wait for weight'...

In the early 90s I had the opportunity to watch the Lancers exercise around Imber village. I asked the weight of their Sultan command vehicle as it seemed low on its springs, 12t they said. Sultan Gross Vehicle Weight by design was 9t - the Army were cheerfully overloading the vehicle by 33%. I came to the conclusion that the only genuine weight limit was space - only when there was no more space left would the Army stop stuffing stuff in. Although there might be realisation too much stuff stuffing had occurred if the vehicle physically broke as in the case of the trials of full Bowman fit in LandRover.


Flight Global have an article (print, iPad and online) analysing India's air force modernisation and options:


Registration required, but it is free.


Think there's problems with WordPress log in.

If the comments box isn't "logged in" try checking if you're logged in at the top right and if so log out fully then back in again.


The Chinese have won the opening round of the World Tank Biathlon in Russia. Twelve nations are taking part using locally supplied T-72's except for the Chinese who brought their own T98's.Perhaps they did not like the colour option left to them as this is the first time they have attended , bright pink !
This kind of 'loading the dice' is something to expect from the Chinese in any future conflict


NATO fears ground invasion as Russia masses troops on Ukraine border


Lights set to go out in Kandahar after U.S. aid winds down


'When the United States stops funding power generation in Afghanistan's southern city of Kandahar next year, the lights are set to go out and factories will fall idle, playing into the hands of Taliban insurgents active in the area.'


DN, I find it a bit suspicious that power generation report. For one, are they talking about infrastructure or fuel, and for another, the Taliban owning a hard target? Shouldn't that have been the target of an attack or a JDAM by now?



Infrastructure mainly, the Kajaki damn was one of the major projects to get going so as to improve life and show the Afghans that their government could deliver something beneficial. We lost a few blokes defending it, and launched a major operation to deliver the turbines, but alas they are still not installed (from last reading).

The Taliban do not own the Damn ( well I hope they don't) they hold the ground from the damn and along the distribution route.


Hesco Bastion awarded flood defences contract


'The Flood Lined units, based on the same Concertainer concept used in Hesco’s military defensive barriers'

War huh, what is it good for? ;-)



While Typhoon helped sustain BAE's supersonic aerodynamics capability, a new challenge emerged in the early 2000s when the U.K. began looking toward a stealthy unmanned combat aircraft. The result was two small U.K.-funded demonstrator UAVs, Raven and Corax in 2003-05, that gave engineers their first taste of designing for low observability. “The U.K. put in place plans to mitigate the risks and collect data. With the flights of Raven and Corax, a large-scale mission-representative demonstrator became feasible,” Lee says.


The current concept for the new mission system is called Overseer, and it is among the items that will dominate discussions between the contractor, the squadron and the defense ministry over where the new money will be spent. The squadron and Raytheon also have a prioritized "shopping list" of other work to carry out. This includes refinements to the radar and an evaluation of additional sensors.

"We're considering the implementation of a long-range optical sensor, which we can then integrate with the radar and provide a much better surveillance capability," says Paul Francis, Raytheon U.K.'s business development director. "[We are also considering] the implementation of a signals-intelligence capability on the platform, to pick up and highlight some of those areas where, just with the radar, it's difficult to form identification."


I thought that BAEs first overt experimentation with LO was Replica?


The continued development of Sentinel is very good news.

Makes you wonder if it's success means we'd sprinkle Boeing MSA into a P-8A order if that's the direction we take or if we'd just stick with Sentinel. Hopefully bulk out the fleet of the latter should MSA/MRA be a genuinely desired task routinely.



Nothing new about LO work as a concept. The British were testing radar absorbent materials in the 1950s and the original TSR-2 requirement contained a weight allowance for radar absorbent material. British designers produced low RCS versions of design studies in the 80s including a derivative of a pre-JSF British only STOVL design.


As an idea, Sentinel might make an interesting platform for EO sensors, or bits of sensor, removed from the RAPTOR pods when tornado goes out of service.

Gloomy Northern Boy

@DN - "Hesco Bastion" - quite bright lads at Hesco - for Leeds... :-)




Visited their factory a couple of times now, they are always very helpful and informative. They used to run a competition for the most intelligent/improvised use of Hesco for construction purposes out on tour, plus they employ a lot of ex service personnel too.

A nice British success story, good to see they are not sitting on their laurels and finding other uses for their product.

It's obviously the national recruitment policy that is helping on the intelligent front ;-)

Gloomy Northern Boy

@DN - Certainly the Yorkshire-wide recruitment policy... :-)



Thanks Hohum. I meant it in the latest generational sense in contrast to the UAV work mentioned in the article but you're quite right.



You certainly can't blame Raytheon for pushing for all sorts of upgrades, it is what Business Developers do and I know the people there reasonably well and have respect for them. They are not without precedent either, so the ideas have some reasonably well developed intellectual input; it was only 8 years ago that Raytheon put together a fairly coherent case to use the Bombardier GX in a SIGINT role during the early days of the R1 replacement process, bringing a fleet commonality approach to the emerging ISTAR Hub ideas at Waddington.

But with a perspective from the other side of the fence, we looked at these concepts as part of the ASTOR programme back in the very early 2000s, and did lots of DSTL modelling. The conclusions were that so much else had to change to accommodate dual usage for role, or multi-sensor fits on a single platform, that the benefits began to be outweighed. Flight profiles, tasking, accompanying protection as you got closer to the FEBA, training needs, different personnel for different mission types, different response times, even a limit on the total number of electronic counter-measures programmed into on board systems....

What we decided was better was to coordinate analysis capabilities, so that ASTOR ground stations could receive and work on raw WATCHKEEPER imagery, and vice versa. Same effect achieved (largely.... Some devil in that detail).

Of course, that was all against hot war scenarios, preceding GW2 and Afghanistan. Different scenarios may come up with different results. I suspect the MoD will listen politely and say "let's see what SDSR 2015 decides before committing any new money".


@Hohum and @RT

Posted last month (by Mark IIRC) on the site but covers what you both describe regarding the DB-110 sensor from the RAPTOR and multi-roling (scroll down for EO bits):


At the same time, UTC and Selex announced development of TacSAR which incorporates a Selex AESA based SAR on the UTC DB-110:


A number of the smaller Selex AESA's are boasting ISAR modes as well.

Whether the UK would want the SAR features on the DB-110 turret or whether RAPTOR pods would be cannibalised and ASTOR provides similar cuing, the two stories haven't been linked. Would TacSAR instead of a "vanilla" DB-110 be desirable in it's own right? Would it free up ASTOR sufficiently for multi-roling or are the operation of each task sufficiently different?


Russia bans all U.S. food, EU fruit and veg in sanctions response; NATO fears invasion


'Russia imported $43 billion worth of food last year. According to the European Commission, Russia bought 28 percent of EU fruit exports and 21.5 percent of its vegetables in 2011.'

Isn’t putting sanctions on food a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face? and what are the Russian people going to do once the food prices rise and then shortages begin? Would that force Putin's hand or is he going to invade Ukraine regardless?


Picked this link up to a RN promo video on another blog: HMS Queen Elizabeth: How will she be used?:

Nothing new of course, but I am interested that they are still using relatively old footage where the CVF is operating with 2 T45s, a SSN and what looks to be a tanker. I may be reading too much into it, but if the RN wanted to promote it beyond high end ops why are there not any pics / video of it operating with the Battlestar Galactica style ragtag RFTG? It would seem to be an easy way to enhance its cause with the liberals :)

Apologies, i know im verging on fantasy fleets, but it then got me thinking about if the CVF were to operate in a standalone carrier battle group what would be the optimal surface escort structure in respect to the broader navy capability.

I've always thought of 2 T45s and 2-3 TAS T26s operating from a pool of 6 T45s and 8 TAS T26s. However, with the 1SL confident that the politicians will be seduced by the carriers enough to promote the need for escorts, would an option be to assign the GP T26s to the carrier group instead? This would mean the CBG would need to run in an active ASW state using the 2050 bow sonars - however with the relatively noisey T45s and CVFs wouldn't that be the best way anyway? This would leave the TAS T26s to operate independently hunting subs or act as escorts for RFAs etc. Would mean that the navy would need to get a pool of 6 T45s and 6 GP T26s.



If you can understand their strategy (and I cant) then there might be sense in there somewhere (perhaps).

As it seems the Ukraine government is poised to defeat the separatists (perhaps) then it would seem the last few months of Russian support, imposition of sanctions etc will have been for nothing at all, unless Russia bails them out again now. I's tend to expect more covert equipment and troops as this would have the least repercussions followed by "peace keepers" as a final resort. If Putin's end game is to bring Ukraine back to his table (probably next spring after a cold winter driven by energy shortages and collapse of support for the government) then the current civil war needs to continue for a while yet. I'm not convinced the strategy is a good one.

You might find this article interesting (there's nothing in here that isn't obvious if you've been following this from the start last autumn and understand what's driving the Ukrainian people - as opposed to their politicians)




VTOL developments

I came across this from a few weeks ago


and wondered what we might use something like this for in 10 (or whatever) years time (on QE/PoW ?) if it can be made to work.



I would have thought you'd always need a couple of 2087s sprinting and drifting otherwise you won't pick up anything below the thermocline.

So an ideal escort force of two T45, two T26-ASW and a couple of additional T26 (either type) would be my favoured solution. However, I'd go for one of each for peacetime ops.


I have a very important contribution to make to this thread.

I am currently on holiday and using my iPad to access Think Defence. When the site loads I find myself unable to make the text larger. The site refuses to scale. TD what can I do? I can barely read the text. Is it possible to load the full site on an iPad instead of the mobile version?


Re Hesco, IIRC it was originally conceived as a flood control tool. The inventor was a redundant mining engineer who got off his arsse instead of sitting around whinging about the sainted Maggie.



Not really, Russia has been invading other peoples countries, fomenting civil wars and handing out heavy weapons like candy. Any exposure to the propaganda now being spewed by the Russian media will also demonstrate a level of hatred for "the west" (including the usual combination of zionists and masons etc) that would make your average Islamist blush. They have already shown a propensity to engage in cyber attacks.


Not an over-reaction. A welcome recognition that "That Nice Mr Putin" is not our friend and that we may actually have to plan on doing something other than make vacuous press statements.

Most welcome of all (if actually adopted) is the hands-on involvement of pollies in crisis management rehearsals / CP exercises. Might actually make them think about strategy and real capability rather than reactive PR soundbites.

Not holding my breath though......


Time to get the Meteor and Aster30 block 2 into service...


Monty, there is not a specific mobile version, it is a responsive design, so adjusts accordingly

Have just run it through an emulator to check, looks good from this end

Does anyone else want to try it for me




Perhaps a link for the SDSR special pleading thread?


Rory Stewart Chair of the Defence Select Committee said "Above all we need politicians to practise decision-making as they did in the past..."

He mention senior level politicians used to be run through what if scenarios so they could practise under intense pressure , and then an analysis of the decsisions fed back to them base on the projected outcomes.We used to run these exercises (WINTEX) regularly it seems but why did we stop just because the wall came down and now we can relax and put our feet up?

The world will always be a complex and dangerous place so our leaders need to be ready and informed to make those hard decision's. Perhaps by running these exercises (starting now ) the scope of SDSR 2015 may be different if the politician's were to experience the frustration of having to few and under equipped spread to thin . Or maybe that's why they don't , with an Ostrich mentality.


@Simon: Agree with your comments on the Thermocline, what I am referring to is the core CBG. We are probably agreeing anyway, as I'd see the ASW T26s doing a broad ASW sweep with other assets (SSNs, UAVs, even MPAs) rather than being tied directly to the sailing close to the CVF.



I was also bemused by the Russian risk assessment moved from Tier 3 (2010 SDR ?) to Tier 1 (now), plus the statement that the MOD considered (my words) "UK forces could meet all contingencies had been brushed aside".

In any case, doesn't this seem to negate the 2010 SDR assumptions and suggest that 2015 will need to be a much more significant exercise than previously thought and discussed here ? It is now a given (surely ?) that post Ukraine it would appear that NATO must actually be able to deploy significant forces into Poland and the Baltics to dissuade Russia from attempting another Ukraine like operation (or perhaps consider permanent basing). It seems to argue the UK thinks this is a serious game changer for NATO (plus with the US pivot, we can not expect as much assistance on the ground going forward).



I would agree if SDSR10 had had any assumptions beyond "we now have less money so we can have less stuff...."


@Nick: Yes, but... Recent interviews of relevant ministers have talked about other European nations manning up to the Russian challenge rather than the UK increasing defence spending.

If I was of a suspicious mind part of this could be to prepare forva part reversal of the Army 2020 strategy as it's proving too difficult to get enough TA volunteers.



A bit of manning up on both sides of the channel would be good, as most nations see countering the threat from the north as a job for the Scandinavian countries and us, with a little lift from the French, can't see that changing really, a little uplift in Spend from those nations would be token as to deterrence at best I feel. We do need to step up a bit more if only to prove our worth to the rest of Europe and unfortunately the US. should we?

Well that's a debate in itself!

As has been stated previously, there may be a little less help from over the pond than we are used to I feel.

Given that the Government aren't going to spend a lot more money any time soon, how can we get the best bang for what little we may be able to realistically put forward, be interested to hear your thoughts, on how we could try to re-shape the Navy/RAF Force structure...

I totally agree, with your thoughts on Army recruitment, well they did give it to Capita!

Seriously though I think it is a lot more difficult to engage the young of today into the possibility of fighting for something they know little about and care even less, I'm being a bit generalist, and maybe disparaging here, I know.

If it doesn't pick up soon, I too expect a re-think along the lines of Hoorah, we found some more money and we can now have 95,000 Soldiers, and don't need nearly so many reservists! At the same time bang goes any chance of force multipliers for the Navy and the RAF I reckon...


Good to hear a Commons Select Committee actually up to speed and leading the debate. SDSR15 just got an awful lot more interesting.

I can see the light rapid reaction brigades being bulked back up to fighting strength, rather than simply force generators for high readiness battlegroups, and maybe more investment in Atlas and Atlas transportable vehicles to get them depolyable into the Baltics fast. The line is open and there are slots up for grabs. Maybe add back a couple of FJ squadrons, go to 6 Typhoon and 3 F35B, and press the 'go button' on the Apache rebuild / upgrade.

Its all going to cost. But the economy is now on the up and the political calculation has changed. UKIP is now the politicial threat to the Conservatives and there is now an existential threat from Russia. So suddenly there are votes in Defence. And that's even before we look at what's going on in the sandpit.


"We do need to step up a bit more if only to prove our worth to the rest of Europe and unfortunately the US. should we? Well that’s a debate in itself!"

What. The. F8ck?

One or two pertinent figures (regrettably from Wiki - short on time), bear in mind proposed 82000 regulars in Army 2020.

Poland army 60000

Boxhead army 65000

Hungarian Army ~26000

Czech Republic Army <20000

Danish Army ~10000

French Army 119000

While noting that many of these countries have made significant contributions to Op Herrick, I'd suggest with the exception of "The Foul and Most Foreign", that it is the rest of Europe that should be proving their worth to us. Not least as they're closer to that nice Mr Putin geographically......


@Peter Elliot

"there are votes in defence "

Could this be the big delay in FRES? In all likleyhood the number of UK jobs in the tracked and wheeled versions is likely to be minimal with the bulk of the work being overseas with the UK input being a few bits and bobs.


And no - I don't see the Navy being cut either. Equipement and manpower for: Crowsnest, P8, 2 QEC and 13 Type 26. And Successor at 4 boats.

Am I smoking something? No. I really do think the political, fiscal and strategic furniture has been re-arranged.


I don't necessarily see the Army headcount increasing above 82,000.

What we might see is the requirment for sustained Brigade Level stabilisation force quietly downgraded. So manpower and quipment spend switched from the Adaptable Force to bring 16x and 3x back up to high readiness fighting strength..



Just emailed screenshot from Android mobile. Will be able to test an iPad at lunchtime.


Hohum and others

I always thought the political logic behind SDSR 2010 to make reasonable political sense given the economic environment. Very simplistically, it seemed something like

Q: What are we likely to be actually doing in the next 10 years ?

A: Supporting the US (alongside some other allies) in low intensity operations like Afghanistan (etc)

Why then do you need a big heavy army (Challenger 2, etc) - we need lighter, more mobile forces at smaller numbers plus Airforce/Navy to provide support [oh and we're stuck with the carriers (plus we'll fund the SSBM/SSN out of the same budget)].

Right now the conclusion seems to have changed to all that plus we'll need to support NATO in CEE to deter Russia. We haven't quite (it seems) got to, but that needs a bigger heavy weight Army (I notice Cameron specifically said we didn't need Tanks in Europe at Farnborough less than a month ago), a more effective Air Force (more Typhoon squadrons surely) and Navy.

If we don't strengthen our forces along these lines (and it does seem we can't afford to right now and I expect that @NAB is completely right regarding European spending), aren't we implicitly telling European NATO that we aren't that interested in chipping in to support CEE Defence and that we're all going to rely on German Army (sic) plus support the modernization of Poland (which is just about the only major CEE country that's actually seen a strong economic renaissance post joining the EU). Somebody has to do something surely ? Especially given the other back drop is (it appears) we can't expect more US forces than are deployed today, because the US isn't going to prop-up under-spending European NATO members anymore.

I might argue that that sort of fits in with the EU exit and the apparent reversion to the British political and economic policies of the 1820s to 1880s that it sometimes seems the UKIPer mindset wants. Sorry I fully expect to be told off about that comment.. and it is clear that they all - especially Germany - need to open their checkbooks. Where is our national defence in this newly emerging cold war if it isn't with NATO in the East ?


The balance I see is that the manpower heavy European nations need to pick up the requirement for sustained operations. Whereas we need to strenghten our rapidly deployable light formations to get them to the point of a crisis fast, possibly followed up by a heavy armour formation for 6-9 months. After that if the crisis is still bubbling we expect our allies to take up the slack.

So for me its the Adaptable Force that gets cut back. Capbadges can be moved into the Light Brigades. But the ability to do a Herrick style op might just be pushed down the capability list.

We still need to keep the North Atlantic and have a strong Task Group. So ASW-MPA and Type 26 are as essential as ever. And the RAF will make a strong case to support the Light Brigades with incremental buys of Atlas, Typhoon and F35B.


Peter Elliott

These are wiki numbers from different years (so big health warning), but I have to say, apart from Germany and (especially) Spain, we aren't that far apart rally if you're using the 2 % GDP bench mark.

Population (Millions)

Russia 143

Germany 81

France 66

UK 66

Italy 60

Spain 47

Ukraine 45

Poland 39

GDP/head ($000)

Russia 12.5

Germany 40.7

France 45.5

UK 45.7

Italy 41.2

Spain 41.5

Ukraine 4.4

Poland 12.2

Defence spending (% GDP) 2012

Russia 4.4%

Germany 1.4%

France 2.3%

UK 2.5%

Italy 1.7%

Spain 0.9%

Ukraine 2.7%

Poland 1.9%


@Not A Boffin

“We do need to step up a bit more if only to prove our worth to the rest of Europe and unfortunately the US. should we? Well that’s a debate in itself!”

What. The. F8ck?

New that would draw someone oot!

Debate is good!

New that would draw someone out!

Debate is good!


“We do need to step up a bit more if only to prove our worth to the rest of Europe and unfortunately the US. should we? Well that’s a debate in itself!”

What. The. F8ck?

New that would draw someone oot!

Gloomy Northern Boy

For me, the lesson of the last year is that NATO is a spent force because most of the participants are unwilling to take it seriously...with the exception of the easternmost members, who must be uncomfortably aware that there is far less standing behind them than they ever imagined. In an increasingly dangerous world (Russia and China increasingly assertive, the Middle East a slow-motion train crash with a top-dressing of medieval religious lunacy) there is obviously a need for us to look to our own defences, which means securing the moat and the westward trade routes against the possibility of a slow but potentially very grave European Crisis moving form East to West...

That suggests that the current balance of forces might be about right, but everything we have needs to be fully tooled-up...no more "for not with", a rapid acceleration of the ship-building programmes and the planned purchase of F-35, making decisions on Army equipment, closing the capability gap in respect of MPA and possibly taking a look at the strength of the RAF in respect of both fighter and transport numbers.

With a growing economy and an increasingly obvious need this is all perfectly achievable...most easily by shifting CASD out of the Defence Budget into a national-strategic one, allowing an only quite modest up-lift to the headline MoD figure to achieve quite a lot of growth.

Given decent political leadership, these would all be priorities and might ideally be developed on a cross-party basis through the good offices of the Commons Defence Committee...not least because their last report touched on many of these very issues. :-)

As it is, we are run by a worthless and historically illiterate set of self-serving snake oil merchants, whose only preoccupation is with getting or holding power by bribing the electorate with their own money and lying to them about the state of the world every time they open their mouths...so as usual absolutely nothing useful or coherent will be done at all! :-( :-(

Deeply Gloomy



I'd put MPA with CASD in terms of budget.

And before you all kick off, I know there is benefit in MPA for other things other than just the SSBN defence ;-)

Oh, and in regard to "a worthless and historically illiterate set of self-serving snake oil merchants", I think you need a revolution to change that, which is only possible with a useless and undermotivated armed force... :-)

PS: Dear GCHQ, I use the word "revolution" only for a bit of fun ;-)


@Nick - Re: VTOL



The thought did pass my mind. Makes you think doesn't it. The props designers really do seem to make the right sort of deductions sometimes...


Tracer rounds that are only visible from the firers angle:



ToC, "page not found".

Besides, letting others see your tracer might be a good thing.

"Squad, enemy behind tree! Watch my tracer!" :)


Posting has been slow this last week or so, busy on other stuff (mainly keeping the wife and kids in the manner to which they have become far too accustomed)

RT, you should have a scroll up and scroll down button now, don't say I don't listen!

Still a few tweaks on formatting to do on that but it should do what you want

The ongoing fight with spam continues, still trialling new systems in the engine room and later today there may be some down time as a few changes kick in (should not be for long though)

Next and final FRES post nearly done, then Monty has a big article lined up, there are a handful of guest posts in the pipeline (some ready for publishing) and lots of other interesting stuff on the horizon

Thanks for your patience chaps



Something else to think about regarding those figures Russia 4.4% GDP , when talking percentages one cannot just think about the amount of Rubles it would generate but what those Rubles can buy compared to the US $ , the € , or the GBP. 5.5 bn Rubles won't be the cost of a PAK-50 but half that or less or put it another way 2 PAK-50 for every F35 ( 4 for every F22 ) .

Another thing to consider is that at any one times Russia is not only building weapons for its own use but for its huge overseas customer base. Their production capabilities are very large and come a war can commander those customers weapons that have just been manufactured but not delivered as well as the material in process.



Is the SABIR guest article still a possibility?

Gloomy Northern Boy

@Simon - even I'm not that Gloomy - we have had much better leaders in the past, and given sufficient shocks...UKIP, a failure to make any sense of EU "re-negotiation", the collapse of Iraq, much more trouble with the Cossacks...the system may yet throw up better; cometh the hour, cometh the men or indeed women...


Gloomy Northern Boy

@Simon - even I'm not that Gloomy - given the possible shocks both foreign and domestic over the next few years (UKIP, EU, Ukraine, Caliph et al) - the system may yet throw up men and women capable of addressing them...my experience of contact with the political class (which is long, albeit local) is that there are better people within their ranks, but under circumstances of normal jogging the determination to conform to the party line is almost overwhelming...less so in a crisis...

And there could be a fair few coming our way... :-)



News and information on the BACN (Battlefield Airborne Communications Node) system:


Note the choice of a Global Express aircraft for the manned platform! Global Hawk variant for the unmanned platform (EQ-4B).

Also of note is the use of a WB-57F (Canberra's) aircraft from the NASA inventory to develop the system. The two NASA aircraft were being used actively in Afghanistan at least until 2013:


Great photo's of a great aircraft :)

Gloomy Northern Boy

Test comment - just lost a couple for some reason...



Just looking back at the Cold War Relics threads on TD from ~2010. Interesting reading considering the new political climate:


There's a historical quote I can't quite place about soldiers being like children in that they will discard a coat because it is warm today, without thought for the cold of night, but the whole 'cold war relic' argument shows that short-sightedness pervades the whole political system. Why are people so keen to believe that 'this time it's different'? I think they should teach geopolitics in school.

And breathe...



Re Hesco, IIRC it was originally conceived as a flood control tool.

I was always told it was designed as method of constructing a cheap retaining wall rather than using gabion baskets that require facing stone and fill material with specific qualities Usually single size stone that requires placing by hand). The material in the Hesco baskets is a geotextile, that is permeable so is not adequate for flood defence, it does however allow almost any fill to be used within the basket and provide structural strength without any form of mechanical compaction.


If Russia is now a threat, does that mean all the 'lighty, Fighty' fantasies are obsolete? And do we need to concentrate on medium weight forces for the Army?

Swimming Trunks

Owl Tracer page appears to be down but plenty of other interesting links to be found:

New helmet designs


and ear protection - weren't we discussing this on another thread?



Thanks @ST. Alternative OWL Tracer article until Defense Update get their site in order:



For all the "oh goody the cold war is back crowd"...

Sorry no we won't need to reactivate BAOR or perhaps British Army of the Donn. ..

Russians ain't gonna role tanks westward except over perhaps half of Ukraine.

Not a NATO member.

Even if they were the state of a Russian Armed forces remains very poor in terms of both numbers and Quality.

They are not the third shock army reborn.

Swimming Trunks

@ The Other Chris - Very interesting. I read somewhere the Chechen (?) rebels stopped using tracer rounds because they gave away their ambush/firing positions too easily.

On the other hand, tracers can be useful - directing assaults at night, indicating targets, etc.



Was the last defence review that put the Russian threat front and centre not the Nott defence review?



The European Defence Agency is examining the feasibility of a multinational tanker purchase using a pooling and sharing model, which Blundell says could be supported via access to the Voyager fleet. Aircraft could be used to provide crew training services or an interim capability before a procurement can be completed, he says.

“Voyager represents a highly plausible opportunity to meet the requirement for NATO tanking and air transport capacity through some form of pooling and sharing agreement,” Blundell says. A refuelling boom could potentially be added to an aircraft within a conversion period of roughly six months if requested, he adds.

Meanwhile, the RAF on 30 July formally declared its core Voyager fleet fully operational. Marked during a ceremony at its Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire, the milestone represents “the transfer from programme delivery to service delivery, with all major clearances in place”, says Air Cdre David Lee, air officer air mobility.


I'm really interested to see how (or if) NATO responds (in terms of doctrine) to the threat of ambiguous warfare and sub-article-5 threats. Credible conventional deterrence is one thing but getting broad-based support for action is another (NATO response force requires a unanimous vote to deploy apparently).



Put the PFI to proper work :)



Spanish navy smuggling coke.

Trying not to laugh, failing.

James Bolivar DiGriz

Much as I think that defence spending has been cut to the bone and beyond and that increased capabilities are needed, I would urge anyone who makes 'the economy is improving' comments to look at this:


The plan in 2010 was that this would stop counting up by May 2015. Currently, IIRC, the plan is for that point to be reached in FY2017/18. That is if and only if there is a Conservative led government after May 2015. Labour plans are, at least publicly, extremely ill-defined but they have made numerous statements about extra spending.



The VTOL X-plane is geared towards the TERN requirement, for something that can take off from an LCS-2 and take a 600lb payload out to 600-900nm. It gets described as a "Predator on a frigate" - not an exact comparison, but it gives you an idea of the priorities. No doubt the USMC will want some for their LHAs but it's debatable whether they would fit the plan for QEC. In any case it's a long way off, it's still at the DARPA-playing-about stage, so 10 years is probably optimistic, particularly in the USN's current funding environment.

PS @TD, the arrows are almost superimposed on each other in the bottom right corner on Firefox/Win8.1


Just reading something on DefenceTalk that said the RNZAF is looking at replacing it's Boeing 757s with A400s in the next few years. At last, an export order!


Just a shout;

VICE has several reports/dispatches that reflects on current events in a slightly different light, some rather interesting interviews and coverage;



Obama authorises Iraq air strikes on Islamist fighters


He adds no ground troops to be deployed .A video on the rise of ISIS.



The only role for light forces is wearing light blue berets and I don't mean AAC. A place called Arnhem in 1944 showed what happens when light forces try to take on heavish ones. The role of duty target is not a happy precedent, but learning from history is what it is all about. Convert RM back to a 'maritime regiments of foot' and re-role them as armoured infantry and abandon the AF nonsense. Just a sensible use of manpower.

The Russian naval threat to the N Atlantic is a shadow of its former self. Russia is the power in the Eurasian landmass, and landmass is the key word.

All Politicians are the Same

854 Squadron leave Afghanistan, BZ guys last entire RN force gone my thoughts are with the families of the 62 RM Commandos who never came home.


The British armed forces have only lost 62 casualties during Herrick so far!

I wonder what all the fuss has been about?

And once again the dark blue show their real colours.



a recipe for clear accountability in acquisition...!

All Politicians are the Same

@ DN

I am going to let that one go as I am not certain I actually understand the level of venom i think it involves.



We have lost over 400 personnel in Afghanistan from all three services, do you not think that as this site is called 'Think Defence' and not 'Think Navy' that your thoughts should be with the families of everyone who has lost a loved one, and not just your chosen few? or are they not worthy of a mention?

I am in no way denigrating the loss of the RM but it's a campaign that has been thought by all 3 services.

All Politicians are the Same


My thoughts are always with the people who lost loved ones, especially where I have served. In this case it is a poignant moment for the RN. You really need to get over yourself mate.


Ostensibly covering hangar construction at Groom Lake but a nice summary of recent and current stealth aircraft projects covering the more strategic side of warfare (bombers, transports, etc):



'especially where I have served'

Are you in danger of becoming that man at the end of the bar?

All Politicians are the Same


Do you have anything useful or relevant to say? 854 have done a great job, the RN leave a landlocked country and you bitch. Says more about you than anything else.



All what I have said is relevant. 854 have done an excellent job and contributed to an all out effort, no doubt done in the great traditions of the Navy.

'RN leave a landlocked country'

I think that statements like that are more a reflection of your own deep down views. Do you believe that the Navy should never have been involved?


PE, I don't see any major differences in Israeli citizenship laws with respect to most other nations save the bar on some other specific countries nationals which is a security issue, not a racial one. Once the security level ramps down over time, I suspect that the bar is going to be lifted. There really isn't much difference in their laws vs other countries.

All Politicians are the Same


No, i beleive we should have and we have. I posted a congratulations and my thoughts, you posted a venom filled reply which ended with the words " and once again the dark blue show their real colours"

That and you are beneath my contempt.



'and once again the dark blue show their real colours”'

And that's what I believe, lets face it for all the purple talk that comes out on this blog, cooperation is not really what people like your selves in the Navy really believe. What it really means deep down is that you want to fly all the jet's and disband most of the Army, and that is why you could brush aside the contributions of the other two services without a second thought, as you said yourself they were your thoughts.

'That and you are beneath my contempt.'

Glad to see my day has not been a complete wash out! ;-)

All Politicians are the Same

"And that’s what I believe, lets face it for all the purple talk that comes out on this blog, cooperation is not really what people like your selves in the Navy really believe. What it really means deep down is that you want to fly all the jet’s and disband most of the Army, and that is why you could brush aside the contributions of the other two services without a second thought, as you said yourself they were your thoughts."

what a bitter and ignorant view.


'what a bitter and ignorant view.'

But not refuted by your good self, who has numerous occasions on this site (among with others) claimed to be doing the armies job etc as you have completed a few tours in the sand. I kicked tin for the JFH but I don't ever recall saying that I was doing the RAF/FAA's job.

Perhaps you can explain to me how I got this bitter and ignorant view?


DN, stop being an arse.

All Politicians are the Same


Lets start with facts. It tends to help. Show me one post where I have ever suggested getting rid of any of the Army? Go on please do. I have completed a tour as an MA that should have been done by an Army officer but life sucks and I volunteered.

What you will see if you bother looking is that I am a huge proponent of all 3 services and even RT(despite our scuffles :( ) would agree.


If we could get back to more interesting and constructive debate* that would be great. Looks like DN misconstrued APATS message and overreacted. Call it quits for the sake of the open thread, eh? Readers tend to skip past the "genuine" topics when comments start to get personal and there's some good stuff been linked today.

*what calibre bullet our next rifle should fire, just how paper thin the armour we need to apply to a vehicle that "protects" RT** should be, how many T26's should be transferred to the RAF, dipping sonars on Wildcat and whether a Shorts Islander would do a better job than a Unic crane

**I jest, I jest!



Yes it did, apparently there are going to be less matelot's for a while ;-)


'I have completed a tour as an MA that should have been done by an Army officer but life sucks and I volunteered'

Yes it should have, but lets not shy away from the fact that the Navy needed to regain some lost reputation after its less than perfect showing in Iraq and allowed such postings to happen, and yes I am well aware the Army did not perform as well as they should have either.

You know yourself that I am not going to go trawling through the TD archives to find one comment, that's why it's an easy reposte to make in any argument on here. My cards are on the table now and I think it's best to leave it at that, TOC may be right about me misconstruing your comment but for that to happen there needs to be a basis to begin with. So I will call it quits and save it for a more genuine topic.


You're right I apologise to you and the other readers.


DN, I don't recall APATS being rabidly pro-Navy, you sure you shot the right guy?

ToC, I'm all for transferring T-54s to the RAF. :P I'm exceedingly curious as to what use they would make of them.

All Politicians are the Same


Trawl away because you know you will find SFA. I find it sad that a simple post and had it been any other service the post would have reflected that caused such a reponse. So to all my UK army, RAF, RN and US CG, Navy and Marines i have served operationally wth my thoughts are with you.



'So to all my UK army, RAF, RN and US CG, Navy and Marines i have served operationally wth my thoughts are with you.'

Thats more like it, less dark blue more purple and who knows you might even start to believe what you apparently preach ;-)

NB there's no point dropping the word operationally into the equation we've all been busy the past twenty years.


DN, are you sure you got the right guy?



I suppose time will tell, and if I have I will apologise in due course.


David Niven,

The most charitable view would that you massively overreacted.

The way I read APATS post that you objected to is no different to an observation of a specific army unit leaving and counting the cost to that unit in particular.


Just a thought but does anyone know what happened to the 13 or so sea harriers stored at culdrose. I'm sure we could find someone to buy them for a a few million. Seems a sham just to leave them to rot.


Quite a few still there by the look of it

Why sell them? They may be needed yet :)


I thought those Sea Harriers at Culdrose had been de-weaponized and stripped of a lot of other systems. I don't even think they fire up the engines, just use them as fixed or towed props for the flight-deck school.

If they aren't airworthy then who would want them?


@ Challenger

Just like the Jaguars, de-mobbed, stripped, left to some elements... just a dream, like the "strategic steam reserve"!

Curious how the Indians turned down the offer to buy the fleet though... kinda got the impression there was problems with the sensitive tech transfer, especially re the AMRAAM/Radar combo.


I'll have one if there going!



Hmm, yeah i can imagine us perhaps (for some reason) not wanting to sell Sea Harriers with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM integrated and the Indian's in turn not showing much interest if it meant a lot of work and money to bring them up-to standard with their existing fleet.

Although that's merely a guess.


@ mike

not all Jags stripped yet ;) they replaced the mighty JP in a training role. The last lot from 6 Sqn at Coningsby still taxi about in a training role.


Digging through old Bristol Siddeley and RR papers to look at Plenum Chamber Burning designs. Reminded of the RB.428 variant Pegasus which was a look at the BS.100 approach for alternatives to reheat.

Spotted mention of the 1187 aircraft designs, luckily there's some sketches to be found online!

The HS.1187-3 design in particularly is very familiar in form:

These are circa 1970.


@ Topman

Oh yeah, the Land sharks :D

Christ, those old JP's... I joined wanting to work on Jags.... never got near them x)


@ mike

Infact I saw them a few months ago, seemed strange to seem them taxiing about.

ahh the mighty JP, they were only sold a few years ago (3 or 4 I think) lined them up at Cosford and flogged them off one by one. Can't knock how much value for money we got from them, trained god knows how many pilots then about 20 years teaching groundcrew probably in the tens of thousands all told I bet.


@ Topman

It was strange...going to work on complex modern equipment, and training with what we jokingly refereed to as taking antiques out for walkies.

Then again, the same would apply today with the Jags!

I can imagine the Hawk T1A's filling that need soon, then again with all this PFI stuff, who knows. Just like the Provo, we've got good mileage out of them.



Q: How long did it take to develop the Scorpion?

BA: Starting from a clean sheet design on 9 January 2011 to the first flight took 23 months. I literally started with an empty building, nine people and a white board. On the commercial side, time is money. If it had taken ten years to build, then it would have cost you $40m. It took us less than two years and you can buy it for $20m. The airplane uses high but mature technology. For example, it’s fitted with Martin-Baker Mk 16 ejector seats which are very high tech, very good and very reliable. Martin-Baker saw the opportunity very quickly, so they came onto the programme as a commercial partner. They looked at our cockpit and said “Oh no – our seats won’t work in that design. We can modify our seats but it will cost tens of millions of dollars as well as about a year’s schedule. If you give us three more inches of the plane and two more inches of width, then our seats will work.” So the design team gave them those extra five inches.

Q: How many existing systems were you able to incorporate into it?

BA: The all-composite fuselage is new build. The hydraulics and electronics are mature technology and it’s fitted with Martin Baker ejection seats together with brakes and tyres from the Citation Sovereign. You can’t use business jet avionics in a tactical airplane, so it uses are military avionics. When we started the project these were sourced from Cobham but they’ve since been spun off and they’re now Genesys Aerosystems. You can spend a lot of money chasing that last 10% of technology and you quickly get a $50m jet.


Air strikes need to support Iraqi refugees fleeing ISIS.

The Prime Minister calls the Chief of the Defence Staff.

"CDS tell me where are our carriers ?"



I owe you a large apology for my comments on Friday, I wrongly attributed views and comments from 'X' as yours. It is commentators such as he who are rabidly Navy and as such display a very narrow and at times derogatory view of the other services, and rather than taking a moment the hairs stood up on the back of my neck and common sense slipped ( which happens to us pongo's from time to time ;-)).

Once again I apologise for the misunderstanding and to the other readers of this blog.

All Politicians are the Same


Shit happens mate,no offence caused.


It would appear the Type 26 may not be the only program with weight issues:




'no offence caused'

I have an inkling that is not the case. Your being very gracious I appreciate it.


@mark think these 2 answers raise an eyebrow as well;

Q: Who supplies the engines?

BA: On this model, the aircraft is fitted with two Honeywell TFE731 turbofans – an engine that has already been used to power a wide variety of business jets. . I know there’s at least one other engine that will fit in that same structure and that was by design not by accident. We’re not going to away from our basic principles of highly reliable, highly affordable, highly effective airplane

Q: While you’re at Farnborough, have you been talking to the systems manufacturers?

BA: We are. I already know that a sophisticated maritime surveillance and a counter narcotics package will work onboard. We have the science, we have the cooling, we have the power and we have the avionics to control it, so we’re well on our way



Yep shows what can happen if you design a new fuselage around tried and tested avionics and systems that can be upgraded as you go along. Seperate the technology of the sensors from that of the plane and don't try and develop everything from new in one go. It made it across the Atlantic flew in uk and headed home and it hasn't been flying for 8 years and had billions thrown at it. If it's optionally manned in the future is it a better option than current uavs? It might be

I would bet the other engine option is none american


@ mark,

I did comment on the maritime thread that these could could cover the SSN's when they come in/go out of faslane , at $1500 per flying hour that would save some serious cash, plus give 9 of them a a coat of red paint and a list of air shows!!


They'd need to carry significant equipment to pick up a subsurface target. Not doubting a surface capability to some extent. MQ-9 already has a demonstrated MSA/MRA capability (Guardian and the Seaspray/Sovereignty demonstration).

If you had the choice between this aircraft or developing the Reaper platform, which way would you go?


Can't help but think that the Scorpion could be a more important Aircraft than the Lighting two.

The concept is radical, design something that nobody has asked for but everyone needs.

@paul g

I total agree.

start off by buying 9 and painting them red.

Perhaps we could get Textron to loan us 9 and then watch the sales come rolling in.



Good news - buying military equipment goes towards our GDP!


Russia testing the US equivalent of QRA and reportedly chasing Virginia-class submarines out of their territorial waters.

Nice shot of a Bear being intercepted by a Raptor, makes a change to seeing Typhoon in the shots:


Gloomy Northern Boy

@Tom - great - a third CVF, more Astutes and a big early order for T26 then? :-)

Nope, thought not. :-(



First time 3 T45's have worked together....


A great sight!


Pity the pilot going up against that trio!



Very impressive shot, especially when you take the capability of each into account.

If only the opening line didn't start with "Half the Royal Navy’s flotilla..."!


Well if the PR boasting is correct then it's the equivalent of taking on 15 Type 42's!

Will a T45 deploy with the Cougar 14 task group?


Just brilliant. I love the observation that chicks love Hueys.




A400 already has one export customer - Malayia. First of four aircraft being delivered next year. Other punters probably wise to take a 'wait and see' approach.

As I understand it, the inclusion of A400 in a NZ document was as a hypothetical so they could attach a known cost to an air transport capability. Still, I think it gives a good hint of which way the wind is blowing in Wellington...

With C17 going out of production, it will come to a choice between C130j and A400 (setting aside long-shots Embraer C390 and Kawasaki XC-2). I think the inability to transport NH90 helicopters in a C130 will steer the choice to A400.

Depends on the government of the day, of course. And the global price of milk.


Moving an object on a water surface using wave generation:


Replenishment at sea or even small craft recovery/deployment applications in the long term? Useful in harbour master duties within a dock maybe?

I like the quote at the end of the video in the article:

"Flow surface waves are way more complex than waves in light and sound."


From Navy News 12 Aug 2014. I wonder who will buy our old ones?


Work on three new patrol ships to begin in October

Whitehall today signed a £348m deal with shipbuilding BAE to provide the Fleet with three new patrol ships. Work on the first of the trio, which will be similar to vessels built for the Brazilian Navy, will begin on the Clyde in October, with it in RN hands in 2017.

Whitehall today signed a contract with BAE Systems to build three new patrol vessels for duties around the mother island – and beyond – from 2017.

Just shy of £350m is being spent with the defence firm, which will construct the trio in its yards on the Clyde.

The new vessels will be based on the Amazonas class of patrol ships BAE built for the Brazilian Navy in its Portsmouth yard – and which were on security duties during this summer’s World Cup.

All three will be bigger than the existing River class ships, which are on duty around the UK for more than 300 days a year, largely focusing on fishery protection work, but also acting as the RN’s eyes and ears in home waters to stop smuggling and terrorism and to help out in emergencies.

The ships in the as-yet-unnamed class will be 90 metres (295ft) long, reach at least 24kts, be able to host a Merlin helicopter and have a range of more than 6,300 miles – enough to take them from Portsmouth to South Africa or ‘Pirate Alley’ between Somalia and Yemen; the vessels are being designed to patrol the broader oceans as much as waters around the UK.

Work on the first ship will begin in October and it is due to be handed over to the RN in three years’ time. BAE has already begun work acquiring engines and gearboxes.

The £348m deal will sustain around 800 jobs in the shipbuilding industry and tide the BAE yards over between work ending on new carrier HMS Prince of Wales and construction beginning on the first Type 26 frigates later this decade.

The next defence review will determine whether the three new ships will be replacements for the three River-class vessels (which have been in service since 2003) or will be in addition to them.


A unit price of £116 million...


TOC - wave manipulation is a clever idea, but you have to consider against passive sonar it would be a huge "I'm over here!" beacon...


£116 million a pop, not exactly the dirt cheap £60-70 million OPV's that are often touted.

'the vessels are being designed to patrol the broader oceans as much as waters around the UK'

All well and good, but if they replace the River's (which i really hope they don't but probably will) then all 3 will be tied to the UK fisheries protection role 365 days a year.


That £348m figure was set back in November, and explicitly includes spares & support :


Also, that's the gross figure, the net cost to the taxpayer would allow for the payments that would be made to BAE regardless of whether ships were being built.

By way of comparison the first BAMs cost ~£100m, the new ones to be delivered in a similar timeframe to these new "Rivers" will be ~£135m. Obviously they have a NH-90 hangar and are a bit more MHPC-like, but have lower labour costs.


Genaral Sir Richard Sherriff with some hard words for the politicians on the situation in Iraq:



Earlier this year there were several discussions on OPV's in different comment sections (some, not all, linked below).

Prominent were opinions that a hangar probably wasn't needed. Also prominent was the feeling that the new OPV's would certainly replace the Rivers (likely not HMS Clyde).

Given more recent talk of "SDSR 2015" being the final decision, taking into account Zambellas' approach (more, admittedly high-end, vessels) combined with actively securing arrangements to plug skills gaps and build for the future, do we still feel that the OPV's are likely to replace the Rivers?







Yes they will replace the River's, or we have to find a bunch more lads and lasses from somewhere and some more operations money.


So in this case the O in OPV will stand for Ocean rather than Offshore. Certainly long-legged for fisheries protection - unless we're returning to the whaling business :-)


3 Ocean going opvs for pirate duties ect are we reducing the frigate fleet by 1 perhaps?


Not according to what Zambellas said in his last speach.

To me it makes sense to have a flight deck on the new OPV to facilitate all sorts of co-operative activity with other law enforcement bodies who operate round our coastline. As for the longer range and endurance it gives the option of throwing one out at range for a drugs bust or SAR operation. But I'm not expecting to see them pop up in the Indian Ocean or even the Eastern Med any time soon.

And I have to agree with others that with the need to find crew for the second QEC and to support the readiness of the existing combat fleet generally I can't these boats being anything but 1:1 replacements for the Rivers.


RAF Tornado's are going back to their old mistress.

Noted that RAF Hurc crews are wearing Osprey and carrying ammunition so they're not fucking about. Imagine RAF Tornado aircraft will have some A2G weapons on board for self-defence or for the defence of life purposes.


The Scottish are going to need something when they get their independence.

I make that three smart new OPVs plus three used old ones ;-)


New Soviet...sorry, Russian wonder weapons on the way:



Sorry for this but the star of Good morning Vietnam Robin Williams has died aged only 63.


He will go down as one of the best stand up and film comedians ever.


@WiseApe It says something when "they allow pilots to land an aircraft successfully" is considered worthy of mention....


Did anyone see the BBC documentary on Scottish independence last night?

I missed the first half and was wondering if they ever mentioned the fact that an independent Scotland means we lose about £74b of revenue but get back £54b in not having to spend in Scotland.

So amortised per unit of population we still need to find £20b from something that doesn't get affected by the population count.... that'd be defence then.... in fact, that'd be Trident.


Does the £74b include their share of national debt repayment and bond yields?



It's simpler than that and should (by rights) include a proportion of everything...

UK spending is £674b

Scottish spending is £54b (8% of UK)

UK GDP is about £2500b

Scottish GDP is about £277b (11% of UK)

If tex revenues are a proportion of GDP (which they are claimed to be) then UK spending will have to reduce by 11% (or £74b). We only get back what we don't have to spend on Scotland (£54b). We have a £20b net loss.

It assumes UK spending includes debt repayments which are severed proportionally between Scotland and the rest of the UK according to the overall GDP of Scotland.


Rotorcraft heavyweights selected for JMR TD phase


Is this a shot across the Scottish independence bow?

'Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: ‘UK warships are only built in UK shipyards. This multi-million pound contract shows our commitment to investing in new ships for the Royal Navy and maintaining in the UK the expertise needed to build the warships of the future. It will benefit the dedicated workers of the Clyde, their families and the local economy in Glasgow.'

UK MoD awards £348 million OPV contract


Gloomy Northern Boy

@Simon - For the CND Nats that is the most important thing about the whole exercise. Now it might be that our political class would react to the humiliation of losing the referendum by adding the additional humiliation of being forced to fundamentally change our foreign and defence policies in a way that all parties have resisted for fifty years and allowing their recent antagonists to crow about it for decades afterwards...but I'm not so sure...

Not least because if they were willing to consider the idea, they could already have posited it in order to undermine the SNP case, couldn't they? As I say, for some of the SNP (and others) the CASD issue is central to the argument; if it matters so little this side of the border why not concede now?




It was an interesting documentary and worth picking out on iPlayer (if it's there).

It suggested that maybe Britain / the UK excluding Scotland / or whatever we decide to call it (my vote is London, 'cos that's the only place Westminster gives a hoot about)... where was I, oh yes... that maybe Britain should take a smaller role in world politics/affairs and become more insular.

In other words become the nation that our size actually dictates.


Simon - regroup, rearm, re-engage... who's for the second Glorious Empire?


@Simon: we're the world's 7th largest economy, with the worlds largest financial centre, home of the world's most commonly spoken and important language, and centre of the world's most common legal system. Time for Empire mk2 :-)


7th largest economy for a couple more years perhaps. 9th when Russia and India get their act together.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-15/new-york-steals-london-s-mantle-as-world-s-top-financial-center.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-15/new-york-steals-london-s-mantle-as-world-s-top-financial-center.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-15/new-york-steals-london-s-mantle-as-world-s-top-financial-center.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-15/new-york-steals-london-s-mantle-as-world-s-top-financial-center.html

I think you'll find American is the most important language. And that means... horror or horrors... that colour is spelt/spelled C-O-L-O-R. Argh!

English Common Law (14%) doesn't account for as much wealth (GDP) as American Common Law (26%).

Empire Mk2 has already been done by the USA in the form of international commerce and takeover from within.

Empire Mk3 is ready to be unleashed by China as they trump America by sneaking in below the radar and owning most of the USA's gold reserves.

Empire Mk4 is up for grabs :-)


The UK's GDP is 2522.26 billion US dollars in 2013 or 1500 billion GBP. George Osbourne really, really, really wishes it was £2500bn!
That way he would be the next leader of the Conservatives not the Blonde Bombshell Boris, BBB.


Sixth largest actually - behind the US, China, Japan, Germany and France. Russia and India are well behind and I can't see Russia getting its act together any time soon... we've been waiting for that to happen since the 50s!

And China doesn't own most of the US' gold reserves - you may be getting confused with gilts (government debt) but China doesn't own most of that either. The US has about eight times as much gold as China. Not that that counts, really, in the modern world.



Whoops! Well spotted. GDPs were in USD not GBP :-)


Gold. Debt. It's all the same. Just virtual wealth. I just took $1.3t and divided it by the current spot price of gold ($42000 per kg) and came to the conclusion that it represents 31,000 tonnes of gold. More than all of Fort Knox.


Alternatively China own 1/4 of the USA by land area (Alaska + Texas + Delaware + Rhode Island) if you are happy with an average land value of $2140 per acre - which was admittedly plucked from the Interweb ;-)


Must watch that programme on Scotland tonite (Colonist spelling ☺) .

If they separate from the UK ,I have no real problem with that. What I think will be interesting is how the EU handle it. If they quickly reintergrate Scotland into the EU fold , this may be seen as signal to other regions of the EU that want to split from their present 'nationality' ,many Countries in Europe are made from smaller areas with strong local identity and see themselves as a separate people , the Basques in the northern part of the Peninsular for one. They could point at the Scottish Nation , raising their own taxes,issuing their own passports, etc and demand the same. Some in Northern Italy have for a long time wanted to split from the south , the walloons of Wallonia may wish to split from Belgium, the Flemish link up their disparate parts in France ,Holland and Belgium etc.



They covered that (the example was Wales). The final 10 minutes was all about the fact that even a "no" vote will have serious repercussions as we'll have to devolve more power to Edinburgh which in turn will create a demand from Cardiff... probably with Cornwall and Devon getting in on the act too.

Basically it ends up with London being the only part of the UK left and everyone else wanting local powers to fix their own back yards as Westminster continues to concentrate on London and not give two camel snorts for anywhere else in the UK.


Re: Economies

Britain is overtaking countries above it in economic turns in the 2020-2030 time-frame (namely France and Germany), it's not a downward slide. Russia's growth has slammed to a halt in the last two months, figures haven't reflected a potential recession there as we're not into full quarters yet.


Shame that AVX miss out at this stage, however they were always up against it. Hopefully they can keep developing their concept. Not necessarily out of the competition entirely as de-selecting for the TD phase is not supposed to be a down-select.

James Bolivar DiGriz

Not been here for a few days so a bit late with this.

Mark (in http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/08/open-thread-august-2014/#comment-302125) linked to this


If you go to


you can pay for a poppy. £25 (+ £5.95 p&P) each, with all net proceeds plus a guaranteed 10% from every poppy sold to be shared equally amongst six service charities:


Combat Stress

Coming Home

Help for Heroes

The Royal British Legion


Details of those, if needed, at https://poppies.hrp.org.uk/about-the-charities.

We have bought one. My wife's firm is involved in providing volunteers to "plant" them so she has put her name forward.



'Shame that AVX miss out at this stage'

Yeah it looked as if it had a bit of potential. Am I right in thinking that the JMR is a programme to replace Blackhawk, Apache and Chinook? If that is the case I can see the Valor, Chinook equivalent being very expensive, would a rotordyme have been a cheaper engineering solution for the heavy lift requirement from Boeing?


Originally a Utility and Attack helicopter replacement for the US Army i.e. UH-60 and AH-64 but would have developed into a heavy lift program(s) later on.

Armed Aerial Scout was the Light helicopter replacement program. Again for the US Army i.e. Kiowa's.

Gloomy Northern Boy

@ Simon...I'll go with the majority...we will still be within the top ten places on Earth, by most measures (out of about 200 in all), with or without Scotland. Personally, I hope they stay but I suspect that rumours of our becoming Belgium if they don't may prove to be exaggerated...not least because there is often an element of Guardianista wishful-thinking on the part of those who say it. Furthermore, in an increasingly fractured world I would still sooner buy shares in the UK than either Russia or China...there is something fundamentally problematic about countries whose elites keep (some of) their money and educate their children somewhere else to my way of thinking...something not quite solid, and perhaps not long-lasting.

@Monkey - Salmond is keen to talk up their being welcomed into the EU and NATO, just as he insists they will keep the Pound whatever the rest of us say, and keep on building RN Warships forever...me, I'm not so sure...too many fragile Countries in Europe whose richest bits want to secede...too much investment in NATO as a first-strike Nuclear Alliance to ignore the possible impact on our defence posture...too many potential English votes in Portsmouth, and political colours nailed to the "No Pound for Scotland" Mast. I just hope we don't find out...




It was more out of interest of the EU's stance that posted that , make Scotland jump through the normal hoops to get admission ,several years or more and keep a lid on Europe fragmenting or make it easy and risk various bit breaking off demanding the same. Europe fracturing itself from within will cause National governments to focus inwards on internal divisions when I think they need to focus on the good of Europe . To paraphrase JFK ' Ask not what Europe can do for you but what you can do for Europe' and '....we live in interesting times' ,a vast understatement considering what is going on in the world.

Do you think Russia and China are happy they have made and sold to anyone who wanted one 100 mn AK's? Or are they possibly thinking it was not such a good idea.


Fitting the three remaining RAPTOR pods to Reapers after five have been moved to the Sentinel could make sense once Tornado is retired:



DN - I remain a huge fan (no pun intended) of the original Fairey Rotodyne. The one that flew was a prototype not intended for production, the bigger sibling (Rotodyne Z, I believe) was about 20% bigger. But for the diameter of the rotor disc their lift capability wasn't all that impressive; 6.7t in the prototype and just over 8t in the intended production standard. Volume was no problem, 70 pax in the bigger of the two, and it had a fair turn of speed (175kt or so). Should Westlands (the owners of the IP) decide to design one using their much higher loaded composite rotors with the club BERP tips, with more powerful engines and better aerodynamics, the result might be quite impressive. Although I would be surprised if the lift capability doubled...

Maybe it needs to be bigger...

Cartercopter state their gyrodyne/helidyne would "cruise at 500 MPH at 30,000 ft altitude and carry a 140,000 lb payload for over 1000 miles" - 60t at speed to theatre and no need for an airfield when it arrives. If the concept is that good, wouldn't you think Westlands should be working seriously at it?


@TOC, loose wording I assume but aside from that what's the betting that once we've fiddled with the Amazonas design we come up with something less capable? Suspect we'll just have 1 30mm and miniguns which is ok for UK waters but if its intended to go further afield even it should at least have comfortable overmatch for your typical current and future pirate threat say. Give it a 57mm/76mm main gun and a couple of 30mm on the wings (seahawk sigmas ideally) and the usual range of 0.50s / miniguns and GPMGs. I'm happy with no full size hanger but would hope it can store and operate something like a schiebel camcopter for wider area surveillance


Not exactly defence related, but 1) it points the way to a more enveloping Situational Awareness solution, and 2) explains what our IXION gets up to when not dabbling in legal matters: http://blog.technicondesign.com/2014/05/technicon-design-france-team-received.html


How is everyone finding the new maths SPAM system.

Seems good from this end, very rare to have a false positive now and not seen any leakers getting through with their adverts for handbags and mens health products!


TD, it's wonderful. Great way to sort the bots from the posters. It's literally a Turing test.


TD, doesn't kick in for me so I've been spared middle of the night maths when settling toddlers back to bed, but I have noticed more reliability in editing comments again. Thank you for the work you put in :)



30mm would be nice, similar to Clyde I think. Do we need to go the full LMM route with a Seahawk Sigma mount?

Would FASGW(L) be overkill for the OPV's?

What do people think?



Very good made my morning!



Looks like HMS Oceans days are numbered.

The order for three of the new version of the original River class is £348m inc spares and support.

The Brazilians including surrendering IP rights picked up their three for £133m.


The T&T government originally ordered the same three for £155m.


(Please note dollars quoted are T&T dollars)

Aren't spares and support expensive ☺


I would have preferred an Ocean replacement to the 3 OPVs, the challenge for all 3 armed services is that we now have more capability gaps and holidays than a sieve has holes. I do wonder seriously, we do need an LPH replacement even if is from a 'stuft' source in reality no one is going to want to stick a QE class close in for an assault, they would present a big and high propaganda target, so surely there si a need for 2 ships one to replace ocean and 1 to replace Argus. I fear the new OPVs will cost more and be less capable then an Amazonia.



My above post was a bit sarcastic , but in the space of 4 years the cost going up 125% (£348m v £155m) is a bit stiff , I bet the T&T Coast Guard were getting 'initial spares and support' too.

Part of that cost increase is we are getting a bigger boat , a stretched River if you will to enable Merlin helicopter operations (inc hangar?) while still embarking mission pods.

Mr Hammond said:

"This deal will provide the Royal Navy with 3 brand new maritime patrol vessels with a wide range of capabilities which will support our national interests and those of our overseas territories."

I think this statement implies these OPV's will be deployed overseas perhaps replacing the present anti-piracy/smuggling patrol duties (hence the Merlin) being carried out by T23's but at a reduced cost (down from 185 crew to 60+a detachment of marines) From that I think we will keep the existing Rivers for home waters/FI as they were only built in the early naughties with the T23's starting to be mothballed/sold off ( a disaster if they are sold ,please,please,please keep them for the RN Reserve Your Lordship Sir Zambella☺)


Gloomy Northern Boy

Boss - the anti-spam brain gym is a great improvement on the random appearance of the Spam Monster; but just to really test our mettle you could put in a random "Grammar Day" "Spelling Day" or "Quadratic Equation Day". :-)

@IXION - Cool paint job old chap...I'll bet it really livens things up at the Carlisle Crown Court when you land it in the car park...

@Monkey - I too would like to see an RNVR manning a mixture of Frigates and Mine-hunters in UK/European Waters...we need to keep these assets, but won't use them short of a serious war...why not man them with reservists?



The article should have said "Ocean-capable" not "Ocean class". WTF are we going to call them? HMS Atlantic, HMS Pacific?

The cost isn't for the ships themselves it's an amalgam of what the TOBA (now temporarily suspended) would have required HMG to pay BAES, because they've been unable to supply the contracted work agreed in the TOBA in the timescale required. Major steelwork on PoW is almost finished on the Clyde and in Portsmouth, which means there's an awful lot of platers, welders and shipwrights going to be spending the day "tidying up" if they didn't do something. That price reflects the cost of supporting the BAES overhead - the workforce that includes designers, IT support, draughtsmen, purchasers, project managers etc etc. The reason we're getting Amazonas is because it's the most recent thing in the BAES information banks (ie recent contracts with suppliers) and after some RN and Class Soc tweaks, off they go.

Meanwhile, T26, the ship that was supposed to be ready for steel cutting next year is conspicuous by its absence. I can't imagine why........


Interesting export orders for Kornet ATGM. Decent range and retractable launcher reminded me of the Swingfire discussion:



Skynet one step closer to its goal !http://www.army.mil/article/128643/Second_Autonomous_Convoy_Demonstration_Completed_by_U_S__Army_TARDEC__Lockheed_Martin/

A clever way of using what you have saving lives on mundane logistic tasks.


Stop being a party pooper NaB ;)

Was hoping that some lax journalism was in fact a lax PR chap leaking that Ocean was about to be replaced with a certain pair of ice strengthened vessels being built somewhere close by on the continent...

Heh heh :)


monkey, I'd love to see those things in operational usage lol. I wonder if the designers ever thought that with the pedestrian detection system, a single protester or unarmed insurgent can cut the supply line just by standing in front of the convoy. :)


@Not a Boffin

For this additional 125% do you know how much extra boat are we getting , a hangar and the facilties to service an embarked helicopter which can't be cheap certainly , will there be a stern access ramp for a RIB or RPV?



Think of it as though we'd have to pay BAE £350m anyway, so we might as well get some boats out of it.

Lowest risk boats they can churn out without delaying a T26 build significantly (assuming a "No" vote) are the three OPV's they built recently with some alterations.


Go on then NAB, I'll bite.

Tell us the latest horror story from the Type 26 Design. Do we have a seaworthy ship design yet that fits in all the toys we think we're getting? Or are they still trading capability against dimensions? Or has something else gone horribly wrong since last itme we asked?


Obs - wasn't that always the case though -

Then again, with all the clever engineers at LM and no doubt a healthy lack of common sense in the project office I'm sure they could come up with a suitable automated system to expediently remove the obstructive miscreant:


"Meanwhile, T26, the ship that was supposed to be ready for steel cutting next year is conspicuous by its absence. I can’t imagine why..."

Australia's SEA 5000 future frigate program? Mast design issues???


If the MoD had to pay out £350m to keep shipbuilding going, would the RN been better off with a modernised Lekiu-esque pair of light frigates rather than 3 poorly armed OPVs?


Then they should supply 6 ( 225% x 3) and a shed load of those spares and we can sell 3 and recoup some of my money . I see two problems with that , the retards in the MoD have been bamboozled into this contract and it never occurred to them or BAE, if someone had mentioned it , probably the new boy from the MoD who now looking for another job for his impertinance, glanced around and slowly shook their head giving the explanation that if we try to build six 90m 1800t vessels in 3 years we can't possibly start those as yet unspecified T26's when you've made up your mind what Gucci kit you want on it.

All Politicians are the Same


For starters i doubt you would get them for this sort of money. They would have to be designed from scratch. Two of them would require around 2.5 times the manpower of 3 OPvs and some of that would be expensive manpower, Charge Qualified ME and WE Officers, SO1 CO and probably 2 PWOs, far more Engineering Senior Rates. through life running costs would be expensive.

These OPVs are going to replace the River Class probably have a Ships Company in the low 40s with far less expensive positions and with running costs mainly paid for by DEFRA.

So in a word No.


A quick stupid question but would £350m go some way to building another T45 hull*? I've never liked only 6 and 7 would help keep two deployed... and yes, I know 8 would be better still ;-)

* By hull I mean everything other than Sea Viper on the premise that it could (if needed) be transferred from a knackered hull to a fresh one in the space of a coupld of months ?!?!??!?!?!


Stupid question for sure. The WR21 Gas Turbines are out of production. (It will be interesting to see if the existing 6 boats get re-worked later in life to use MT30 which will become the RN standard unit.)

If we could ever justify capital and crew for extra Combat Ships surely better value to order more Type 26? By all accounts Artisan + Seaceptor is none too shabby. And with a full size in the design an upgrade to optimise the AAW capability would not be out of the question.



Oh, didn't realise WR21 wasn't available any more. Fair enough.

I was just thinking of something that would alleviate the burden on an already pressed escort fleet.

I guess (as APATS said) that there would also be a crewing issue.


Monkey - you're hardly getting any extra ship. The additional money has very little to do with the ship and everything to do with paying the wages of those BAES employees identified as being essential to maintaining complex naval ship design and build capability under the TOBA. That TOBA was the brainchild of MoD and UK industry, actually with the advice of RAND Europe, a fellow by the name of Hans Pung to be precise. They identified that UK shipbuilding would need a significant amount of additional capability during the build of QE/PoW, but that this would rapidly dimish thereafter, to a level commensurate with producing one T26 pa. That was the preferred solution. You should be able to get all those papers off the RE website. MoD basically bullied UK industry into part of that consolidation, with the carrier order being contingent on the formation of BVT. The flip side to that consolidation was that MoD was to agree to provide a defined amount of work across shipyard areas (design, steelwork, outfit, commissioning etc) to maintain a minimum core capability in each - the TOBA.

T26 was supposed to be the vehicle for that and it has happily kept several hundred people in Bristol and the Clyde turning and burning for about three years. Unfortunately, that hasn't yet resulted in a design suitable for contract award as yet, which means that the steel trades and detailed design staff on the Clyde are without much visible means of support, which would make MoD liable to pay BAE their employment costs. Someone has had the "bright" idea that it's probably better to have them exercise their skills by detail designing and building "something" than being paid for doing "nothing". Hence the OPV contract.

In terms of building upgraded Leiku's, you'd have to ask for what purpose? As APATS points out, the manning on them is demanding and just as importantly, have you checked Malaysian design standards (stability, strength, accommodation, fire protection, DC&FF etc, etc) against what we use? Apart from the other slight issue that the last time BAES modified the Leiku's we called them the Brunei OPVs - and that went extraordinarily well, didn't it? Just because they've got some shiny weapons systems on them doesn't necessarily make them more useful than an OPV.

Quite why anyone would want to build a T45 hull without just about the only major bit of kit you can still (mostly) get off the shelf, I don't know. Let's have a quick check - WR21, 2 off - not in production, 20MW electric motors, 2 off - not in production, SAMPSON , 1 off - not in production, Mk8Mod1, 1 off - not in production, converters, 2 off - not in production. Production of any of these items is unlikley to resume (if ever) without an eye-watering amount of money.

I gather you can still get Sylver launchers from our friends over the channel though. And Mk41 from those nice people at LM.


Are the 20MW motors not the same that are going on CVF? Converteam?

Not that it helps my case at all ;-)


NaB, if you had a bit pot of cash and carte blanche, how would you make T45 more supportable in the medium to long term?

Am wondering if there is an invest to save argument


Yep the same motors that have been in QE and POW for some time. Last one finished some years back now 2011/2012?

Single biggest supportability improvement for T45 would be rip out the Great White Turbine and put in another one, without all the complex cycle nonsense and use bigger donks for low power load.

But NCHQ may already be ahead of me on that one.


I presume when you say "not in production" you mean they are produced to order otherwise how would we replace defective units?

Didn't we have a small spare pool of Olympus engines for CVS and T42?


No Simon - I think there are literally 12 units in existance and they sit inside the 6 existing ships. If one blows up then the ship will have to go alongside until that unit is stripped and rebuilt. Hence the enthusiasm for ripping them out and replacing them with something more widely available.

NAB - on Type 45 would a pair of MT30 be overkill? Or would you go for just one MT30 + bigger diesels? Or a pair of some smaller turbine?


...or some LM2500?


That's terrible.

How different are the guts of them from the industrial RB211?


MUOS connects Manpack radios 2,000 miles apart


'The demonstration also successfully showed how dismounted Soldiers, separated by thousands of miles, can use the PRC-154A Rifleman handheld radios and connect through PRC-155 Manpack radios at the platoon level and below. The soldiers can talk to another and share data with the ease of civilians who enjoy using their cell phones to call friends and family anywhere in the world.’

I wonder if the military will introduce text and emoticons at platoon and section level?

Where R U?
Contact w8 out :-s


Didn't the military invent texting a couple thousand years ago?


DN, so basically, a sat phone painted green

I will get excited when they paint one of these green




Thanks for the heads up , I am all for keeping these skills and facilities in place.

Re the WR21 gen sets perhaps we could use the as part of shore based CHP or back ups.



'so basically, a sat phone painted green'

Basically yes, but it has the advantage of just being an add on for the service radio and could you not link more than 1 radio to both ends of the network? I didn't think the hand held sat phones were very reliable when I used them so maybe this is more reliable?

What we really need is a military mobile network using the old Nokia 6110 series, those things were indestructible with about a weeks worth of battery life! :-)


*NaB; if I may be so bold - great analysis of why some of the BAES / MoD costs mount up.

May I just point out that the supply chain goes right back though - way back beyond the Class Soc's right to the original steelmakers....and new steel grades for the Royal Navy / MoD can't be developed in a week or two (even if LR was willing ever to a punt that it might be okay - and we all know they never do and nor do the very bright 'scientific types' within MoD)......

.....thus if HMG wants a proper 'RN' shipbuilding capability, I agree, the taxpayers have to pay for it but it would be nice if BAES didn't expect us to pay prices that cover the most expensive trainers in the shop.

(PS: 'Side thought' - just why are trainers so expensive? Does the 'swoosh' etc. on the side really make you faster?



Here you go.

Who said military procurement was so difficult ;-)


Well if not Lekiu, why not look to Brazil & the Barroso? Quite like the 4.5" gun which could probably be recycled from T42s, Forget the Exocet, perhaps have remote 30mm in their place, swap the 40mm Sea Trinity for a recycled 20mm Phallanx. Keep the Torpedo tubes, but use Stingray.


Did anyone ever get to the bottom of the T45 additional VLS allowance mystery? I still meet people who swear blind there is enough room for another 24 cells in the existing space and that that was an initial requirement.


x linked to some cutaways a while back which illustrated the space below deck behind the existing silos.


"How is everyone finding the new maths SPAM system." - I've had to put a new battery in my calculator!

Absolutely stunning sight - shame the journo witters on over the sound of the engines: