Dannatt and Page
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,243
Received 68 Likes
on
29 Posts
Melchett01: if I had a daughter, I'd want her to marry you.
You, sir, have summed up the argument far better than any expert or commentator could hope to do so.
You, sir, have summed up the argument far better than any expert or commentator could hope to do so.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weary tedium resounds.....
Melchett
Actually, it is you who offers no more than petty single service parochialism. You’ll note, despite your lengthy diatribe, I was not disregarding the need for a AD capability, rather suggesting we could have done it differently and certainly cheaper than Typhoon. Furthermore Typhoon is not a swing role platform yet - and will not be in the foreseeable future.
I agree however it is the worst of ‘Air’ single service gamesmanship to pretend that the Army is saying such things. They are not. Equally, no one sensible in the Army I know is suggesting we cut the Navy further or in particular ASW capability. These, as with AD, are important facets of British conventional capability. When was the last time RN anti-submarine capability was used in anger? I have no idea... probably the Falklands, however it is an important capability in a conventional conflict the UK must maintain. I hold less conviction regarding Trident but that has been done to death elsewhere.
What I find disappointing is how capability is so fundamentally misunderstood by those such as yourself. The ‘cold war’ label is irrelevant. It is capability and effect (related to cost in some degree) that are the key considerations and this is where Typhoon struggles. As stated earlier, in terms of A-G effect anything carrying a pod and laser or GPS guided bombs (including in some areas C130) is capable of providing an effective A-G capability. Again, whilst I’m no jet bloke, in A-A/AD terms, a radar plus a decent BVR missile sounds like a AD requirement. That to me sounds like an F16/F15/FA18/Grippen etc... However, getting lots of wazzy jets because, well, other people might get wazzy jets, is hardly a capability requirement.
The ‘cold war’ label also falls over in helis such as:
· Apache. Old airframe, heavily upgraded with MTADs and very effective weapons for convetional warfare also capable in COIN Ops.
· CH47. Old, excellent airframe but with engine and impending avionics upgrades.
· Lynx Mk9A. Old airframe with new engines replacing the GEMs built for Western Europe. Still too small with limited weapons.
· Blackhawk. Cold War designed, yet significantly updated with weapons and engines making it the most versatile and proven medium combat helicopter in the world.
The ‘Cold War’ label, despite repetition by the PM, is a red herring. In service, available or future equipments combining current COIN (AFG) and future conventional capabilities are exactly that. Capable aircraft that deliver current and future effect and capability. Some may not deliver current effect but are vital for AD. Ok. But let’s not further muddy the waters with ‘what if your helicopter was shot down by the Judean People's Front’ rubbish.
I await the we ‘must have Typhoon’ (despite delivering the same weapons as any other jet).... diatribe with significant indolence.
Actually, it is you who offers no more than petty single service parochialism. You’ll note, despite your lengthy diatribe, I was not disregarding the need for a AD capability, rather suggesting we could have done it differently and certainly cheaper than Typhoon. Furthermore Typhoon is not a swing role platform yet - and will not be in the foreseeable future.
Now whilst there isn't much of an air threat in Afghanistan, that is not to say that at some point in the future that threat won't emerge.
What I find disappointing is how capability is so fundamentally misunderstood by those such as yourself. The ‘cold war’ label is irrelevant. It is capability and effect (related to cost in some degree) that are the key considerations and this is where Typhoon struggles. As stated earlier, in terms of A-G effect anything carrying a pod and laser or GPS guided bombs (including in some areas C130) is capable of providing an effective A-G capability. Again, whilst I’m no jet bloke, in A-A/AD terms, a radar plus a decent BVR missile sounds like a AD requirement. That to me sounds like an F16/F15/FA18/Grippen etc... However, getting lots of wazzy jets because, well, other people might get wazzy jets, is hardly a capability requirement.
The ‘cold war’ label also falls over in helis such as:
· Apache. Old airframe, heavily upgraded with MTADs and very effective weapons for convetional warfare also capable in COIN Ops.
· CH47. Old, excellent airframe but with engine and impending avionics upgrades.
· Lynx Mk9A. Old airframe with new engines replacing the GEMs built for Western Europe. Still too small with limited weapons.
· Blackhawk. Cold War designed, yet significantly updated with weapons and engines making it the most versatile and proven medium combat helicopter in the world.
The ‘Cold War’ label, despite repetition by the PM, is a red herring. In service, available or future equipments combining current COIN (AFG) and future conventional capabilities are exactly that. Capable aircraft that deliver current and future effect and capability. Some may not deliver current effect but are vital for AD. Ok. But let’s not further muddy the waters with ‘what if your helicopter was shot down by the Judean People's Front’ rubbish.
I await the we ‘must have Typhoon’ (despite delivering the same weapons as any other jet).... diatribe with significant indolence.
Last edited by Pongochap; 16th Oct 2010 at 23:29. Reason: Formatting.....
"As stated earlier, in terms of A-G effect anything carrying a pod and l@ser or GPS guided bombs (including in some areas C130) is capable of providing an effective A-G capability."
As long as you have an adversary who has elected to do nothing to stop you, and is willing to take the hits from air attack while counterattacking in other ways.
"Again, whilst I’m no jet bloke, in A-A/AD terms, a radar plus a decent BVR missile sounds like a AD requirement. That to me sounds like an F16/F15/FA18/Grippen etc."
Well, yes. And they can also do A-G even when the bad guys are not cooperating. Likewise ISR, after they fit a Cessna with a door gun and take out your Watchkeeper. And armed maritime surveillance, and EW, and... But except for Gripen they will all cost about as much as Typhoon.
So how about having the RAF spec out your next combat rifle?
As long as you have an adversary who has elected to do nothing to stop you, and is willing to take the hits from air attack while counterattacking in other ways.
"Again, whilst I’m no jet bloke, in A-A/AD terms, a radar plus a decent BVR missile sounds like a AD requirement. That to me sounds like an F16/F15/FA18/Grippen etc."
Well, yes. And they can also do A-G even when the bad guys are not cooperating. Likewise ISR, after they fit a Cessna with a door gun and take out your Watchkeeper. And armed maritime surveillance, and EW, and... But except for Gripen they will all cost about as much as Typhoon.
So how about having the RAF spec out your next combat rifle?
Typhoon, as a project, is more important politically/industrially then capability - and always has been. The respective governments wished to prove their European credentials as well as preserving the skill set to design and manufacture advanced combat aircraft (with all of the associated technological spin-offs in other areas). So, Typhoon is an expensive option when stacked against multi-thousand production run F15/16/18 but a large % of the money spent returns to the respective govts in the form of tax so the true cost per jet to the public is probably lower than the fly-away sticker price would suggest. For these reasons Typhoon was ring-fenced in the 98 SDR. The Typhoon is a more capable platform than legacy F-series jets - however, if Typhoon had entered service on time it would have been seen as a step forward, but, alas, it has arrived already outdated by F22 and soon to be eclipsed (in most roles) by F35. Thus, it looks late & expensive.
Now, where it becomes controversial, is the increasingly shrill voices of seemingly FJ-centric officers who've now got their new toy (Typhoon) yet want to keep all of their old toys too and threatening doom if they don't. If we play "buggins turn" then it's the Navy's turn, so the carriers are ring fenced and survive. The RAF has raped other capability areas to put Typhoon on its pedestal and the RN are now offering to do the same with Amphib/DD/FF forces to get their CVFs.
It's not pretty, but the CVF programme is industrially and politically where Typhoon was in 1998 - the RAF need to get over it.
Melchett,
An eloquent proposal, however you could also re-write your future scenario thus:
In 30 years time a force of 10 Chinook Mk9s successfully inserted 40 Commando onto a target area inland after a classically executed STOM coup de main conducted during a no moon phase at night. Recce was provided by long range stealthy UAVs which provided streaming video of the target area and ELINT "take". Flanker varients attempted to interfere with the landing but E2 Hawkeyes from HMS PoW detected them early and vectored the CAP F35Cs to intercept. Using superior stealth, data links and BVR AAMs the Flankers were splashed by the F35s before they could interfere with the RW raid. Local protection to the assault was provided by CAS F35Cs and Apache gunships, whilst UCAVs interdicted supply routes and prevented the enemy from reinforcing the position. Diversionary strikes by F35 delivered Storm Shadows unhinged the enemy defences and organic/F35 jamming provided a screen of electronic protection. An escaping enemy commander, a HVT, was ID'd by one of the UAVs and successfully neutralized by a CAS CAP - configured Taranis variant. Post raid visual and electronic recce was conducted by a suitably configured F35s/UAVs.
If PoW/QE are Cat/Trap then the existing plans (with sensible embellishment) gets us to this outcome. Two CVF, 30-odd embarked F35s plus E2 and 20 ish RW operating off the other deck (CVF or LPH) with some shrewd use of long range UCAV and the job's done. Not to suggest that your scenario isn't plausible, just that others are equally valid - my assumption is based upon CVF/F35C with opportunities for sensible upgrades as finances improve.
Typhoon is still in the inventory, holding UK QRA in the Falklands and is available for deployed ops if HNS is available.
Now, where it becomes controversial, is the increasingly shrill voices of seemingly FJ-centric officers who've now got their new toy (Typhoon) yet want to keep all of their old toys too and threatening doom if they don't. If we play "buggins turn" then it's the Navy's turn, so the carriers are ring fenced and survive. The RAF has raped other capability areas to put Typhoon on its pedestal and the RN are now offering to do the same with Amphib/DD/FF forces to get their CVFs.
It's not pretty, but the CVF programme is industrially and politically where Typhoon was in 1998 - the RAF need to get over it.
Melchett,
An eloquent proposal, however you could also re-write your future scenario thus:
In 30 years time a force of 10 Chinook Mk9s successfully inserted 40 Commando onto a target area inland after a classically executed STOM coup de main conducted during a no moon phase at night. Recce was provided by long range stealthy UAVs which provided streaming video of the target area and ELINT "take". Flanker varients attempted to interfere with the landing but E2 Hawkeyes from HMS PoW detected them early and vectored the CAP F35Cs to intercept. Using superior stealth, data links and BVR AAMs the Flankers were splashed by the F35s before they could interfere with the RW raid. Local protection to the assault was provided by CAS F35Cs and Apache gunships, whilst UCAVs interdicted supply routes and prevented the enemy from reinforcing the position. Diversionary strikes by F35 delivered Storm Shadows unhinged the enemy defences and organic/F35 jamming provided a screen of electronic protection. An escaping enemy commander, a HVT, was ID'd by one of the UAVs and successfully neutralized by a CAS CAP - configured Taranis variant. Post raid visual and electronic recce was conducted by a suitably configured F35s/UAVs.
If PoW/QE are Cat/Trap then the existing plans (with sensible embellishment) gets us to this outcome. Two CVF, 30-odd embarked F35s plus E2 and 20 ish RW operating off the other deck (CVF or LPH) with some shrewd use of long range UCAV and the job's done. Not to suggest that your scenario isn't plausible, just that others are equally valid - my assumption is based upon CVF/F35C with opportunities for sensible upgrades as finances improve.
Typhoon is still in the inventory, holding UK QRA in the Falklands and is available for deployed ops if HNS is available.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As stated earlier, in terms of A-G effect anything carrying a pod and l@ser or GPS guided bombs (including in some areas C130) is capable of providing an effective A-G capability.
Yes... once it gets there.
I am well aware that some of the most sought-after platforms are A-10 and AC-130, but to provide all your CAS this way would give you enormous problems.
Speed's important if you want a decent TIC response time without having to have many, many of these platforms. AC-130 travels about a third the speed of a Typhoon, so you'd need nine times as many airborne to give you the same cover (PM me if you don't get the maths!). You also need more/bigger bases (with FP, enablers etc), and you can't get as far to the tankers, so you need more tankers (more bases, etc).
Typhoon isn't the be-all and end-all by any means. But, it's the only jet we're going to be able to get to do the job we need to do - we're way past the point where we could say "oh, let's not bother with modern jets and just get some F-16s". And yes, it's not swing-role just yet but WILL be in the foreseeable future - don't know how far you're looking! Unfortunately we're now really only buying enough frames to do the AD job, which is why we need to keep hold of GR4 until something else comes along. And no, we couldn't do it with Harrier - the fleet's too small, tired and limited.
How about the RAF spec out your next rifle?
Sounds like a grand plan to me; I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have selected the SA-80/L85 debacle!
Then again, our collectively (tri service) poor choice of the company that now owns the companies responsible for SA-80, Typhoon, Nimrod MRA4 and the ill fated Phoenix UAV is mostly to blame.
You know the company name - the other B word! BAe...now Systems.
The B Word
Sounds like a grand plan to me; I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have selected the SA-80/L85 debacle!
Then again, our collectively (tri service) poor choice of the company that now owns the companies responsible for SA-80, Typhoon, Nimrod MRA4 and the ill fated Phoenix UAV is mostly to blame.
You know the company name - the other B word! BAe...now Systems.
The B Word
Yup, buying Dimaco C7s would have saved about £500 per SA-80 that we bought - that's a lot of money! I believe that over 300,000 were built so that is a £150Bn saving (uh oh, maths in public!).
LJ
LJ
There's an ever so slight difference in the Buggins turn argument, because as far as I can work out, no one was suggesting that even if Typhoon was canned, it was never replaced with something else, ie end of "fast-jet" capability. In the case of CVF, it literally is that argument - no CVF, no more organic air - and that is why the RN has fought so hard for the ships. Think Joint Warrior, but with slightly expanded areas and then ask how many cabs from either Lossie or Leuchars are required on task just to provide air cover, never mind strike......
Biggus
Fair point mate and thanks for the correction. I guess it does illustrate, as a percentage, that procurement is as screwed up as my maths ( and trying to post using an iphone!).
LJ
Fair point mate and thanks for the correction. I guess it does illustrate, as a percentage, that procurement is as screwed up as my maths ( and trying to post using an iphone!).
LJ
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter
Exactly, each scenario can be played any way, so some PAK-FA launch a storm of BrahMos (supersonic anti ship missiles) from 500km away, how far out are your CAP's? Or they can just sub launch them. After all they are trying to sell them to half of the world at the moment. I would imagine betty and chuck would have to be pretty far off the coast as well if intel said that the land variant was in the AOR.
And then there is BrahMos II due in about 2013-15........well?
If PoW/QE are Cat/Trap then the existing plans (with sensible embellishment) gets us to this outcome. Two CVF, 30-odd embarked F35s plus E2 and 20 ish RW operating off the other deck (CVF or LPH) with some shrewd use of long range UCAV and the job's done. Not to suggest that your scenario isn't plausible, just that others are equally valid - my assumption is based upon CVF/F35C with opportunities for sensible upgrades as finances improve.
And then there is BrahMos II due in about 2013-15........well?
FnF
Your scenario is what one would hope the requirement set for T45/Sea Viper has in the KURs....and why the RN may be myopic in trading escorts for capital ships. Make no mistake, unless you do CVBG properly with a properly layered defence then you just create vulnerable totemic articles of national pride.
Of course, a HNS effort of deployed Typhoon is equally (if not more) vulnerable to a more accurate "son of scud" ballistic missile.
As you highlighted though, many scenarios play out in different ways. Equally certain is that we cannot fund all SAG scenarios to the extent we need to....
Your scenario is what one would hope the requirement set for T45/Sea Viper has in the KURs....and why the RN may be myopic in trading escorts for capital ships. Make no mistake, unless you do CVBG properly with a properly layered defence then you just create vulnerable totemic articles of national pride.
Of course, a HNS effort of deployed Typhoon is equally (if not more) vulnerable to a more accurate "son of scud" ballistic missile.
As you highlighted though, many scenarios play out in different ways. Equally certain is that we cannot fund all SAG scenarios to the extent we need to....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The swing-role Tiffy offers something else besides an air defence platform or one that can transit across the AOA quickly. It can also exploit height in the CAS role. At the moment the ground threat is relatively low level. In early days it was relatively benign until the US supplied Stinger to the mujahadeen. If someone provided a SAM that could operate to 20-25k then many of the current CAS assets would be at risk.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter,
I did like the little scenario you provided yesterday. A convincing argument for the utility of CV and amphib capability for small-scale interventions.
Clearly people can throw rocks at any scenario, and I'll resist any speculation on whether we'd be likely to get Hawkeyes, stealthy UAVs, carrier-borne UCAVs, suitable escorts etc.
The thing that bothers me is the cost to UK defence. Parocahilly for the RN, this scenario gives them almost everything they want... but what can the rest of the UK forces do? You pretty much say so yourself, in your closing point, when you say that
Is this really what you'd want to see? UK air power reduced to a token air defence and a small AI/CAS capability provided solely from carriers (which is what a buy of 50 F-35C implies)?
I for one would like to see some CAS/AI capability that can deploy at faster than you can ride a bicycle from wherever it happens to be around the globe. And unless you can, it's a bit pointless having high-readiness forces like 16 AA Bde.
And, as a PS, the old chestnut "if HNS is available".... I do note that things like overflight rights are conveniently forgotten whenever anyone wants to make a point about how carrier air is in use in Afghanistan, or how you could use TLAM to provide deep strike.....
I did like the little scenario you provided yesterday. A convincing argument for the utility of CV and amphib capability for small-scale interventions.
Clearly people can throw rocks at any scenario, and I'll resist any speculation on whether we'd be likely to get Hawkeyes, stealthy UAVs, carrier-borne UCAVs, suitable escorts etc.
The thing that bothers me is the cost to UK defence. Parocahilly for the RN, this scenario gives them almost everything they want... but what can the rest of the UK forces do? You pretty much say so yourself, in your closing point, when you say that
Typhoon is still in the inventory, holding UK QRA in the Falklands and is available for deployed ops if HNS is available.
I for one would like to see some CAS/AI capability that can deploy at faster than you can ride a bicycle from wherever it happens to be around the globe. And unless you can, it's a bit pointless having high-readiness forces like 16 AA Bde.
And, as a PS, the old chestnut "if HNS is available".... I do note that things like overflight rights are conveniently forgotten whenever anyone wants to make a point about how carrier air is in use in Afghanistan, or how you could use TLAM to provide deep strike.....
OA,
Would 140+ Typhoon and 50+ F35 make us a "token force" if those ac were backed up by a balanced AAR/ELINT/ASAC capability and other areas such as AT/SH were also funded to aspiration? We're constantly told how much better these ac with PGMs are than their forebears so the arguement for "fewer but better" has already been made.
If HNS is available you need sufficient AT/AAR to surge and operate Typhoons from, if not you do it from the oggin. 16 AAB don't give a monkey where the Fires are from (FJ/AH/Arty/NGS) as long as it is timely and accurate and they have sufficient AT/SH to provide mobility.
Overflight rights is a weakness of airpower regardless of the basing option.
Would 140+ Typhoon and 50+ F35 make us a "token force" if those ac were backed up by a balanced AAR/ELINT/ASAC capability and other areas such as AT/SH were also funded to aspiration? We're constantly told how much better these ac with PGMs are than their forebears so the arguement for "fewer but better" has already been made.
If HNS is available you need sufficient AT/AAR to surge and operate Typhoons from, if not you do it from the oggin. 16 AAB don't give a monkey where the Fires are from (FJ/AH/Arty/NGS) as long as it is timely and accurate and they have sufficient AT/SH to provide mobility.
Overflight rights is a weakness of airpower regardless of the basing option.
