UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24873
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 May 2012, 01:31

France: U.K. F-35 Pick Could Reduce Naval Cooperation May. 11, 2012 By PIERRE TRAN

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

"PARIS — France regretted the prospect of reduced cooperation with the British fleet air arm following London’s selection of the F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, and hoped collaboration would continue, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said....

...In France, the British U-turn drew wide press coverage, headlining a missed chance for interoperability between the two fleet air arms.

The afternoon daily Le Monde gave full-page coverage to the F-35 fighter program, and quoted from point 9 of the 2010 Lancaster House defense cooperation treaty, which referred to the capability to deploy an integrated Anglo-French naval aviation attack force.

For the French Navy, a British carrier offering cross-deck operations held out the hope of flying a handful of Rafale fighters from the HMS Prince of Wales while the Charles de Gaulle went into dry dock for its periodic six-month overhaul.

And closer cooperation with a British carrier force would have balanced the close ties with the U.S. Navy, where French Navy pilots are sent for carrier training.

One of the questions hanging over cross-deck flights was whether the British Navy F-35C would have been too heavy to land on the Charles de Gaulle. Now, that question seems purely academic."

More at the jump but mostly about the decision wot has been repeated here now endlessly....
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 691
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post12 May 2012, 02:01

emc2 wrote:The UK, unlike the US has some sort of defense against sea skimming missiles in the T45. So if the US wants to attack Syria, Iran or Russia it would have to to be defended by UK or french ships.


CIWS & RAM don't count? http://youtu.be/Zdp9llrBLnA
:roll:
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 May 2012, 15:47

stereospace wrote:
emc2 wrote:The UK, unlike the US has some sort of defense against sea skimming missiles in the T45. So if the US wants to attack Syria, Iran or Russia it would have to to be defended by UK or french ships.


CIWS & RAM don't count? http://youtu.be/Zdp9llrBLnA
:roll:


Or better yet, a SM-6 fired in Launch-On-Remote mode cued by offboard sensors and nailing the incoming cruise missile hundred of kilometers distant.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2822
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post13 May 2012, 18:55

If the UK had chosen Rafale M rather than F-35C would they have U-turned. The MoD wants their cake and to eat it, too, even when only one or the other was the option.
Offline

emc2

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2012, 12:55

Unread post14 May 2012, 14:56

stereospace wrote:
emc2 wrote:The UK, unlike the US has some sort of defense against sea skimming missiles in the T45. So if the US wants to attack Syria, Iran or Russia it would have to to be defended by UK or french ships.


CIWS & RAM don't count? http://youtu.be/Zdp9llrBLnA
:roll:


No. CIWS is useless against even subsonic and especially if there is any interference from other ships/helicopters/chaff. Hypersonic swarms tats change direction and come from all angles, while bypassing the escorts and going straight for a Carrier. No chance.

The USN and government has expressed the explicit fear that the carriers and completely vulnerable against Russian missiles. Syria and Iran have then, seen any chance of a US carrier going near their shore?

Or better yet, a SM-6 fired in Launch-On-Remote mode cued by offboard sensors and nailing the incoming cruise missile hundred of kilometers distant.


Yeah, good luck with catching a mach 5 or mach 7 missile with a mach 3.5 missile.
And I hope you can fire six at once and hit every incoming target.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 May 2012, 17:01

Wow, completely clueless ;)

1. While CIWS has some issues with a supersonic missile, subsonic ones are within it's target set.

2. RAM was specifically designed to counter supersonic ASMs

3. RAM (and Sm-x, ESSM, etc) do not have to chase an inbound missile as they will "intercept" it in a head-on engagement.

4. Laser based CIWS is already being developed

5. There is no such thing as a "hypersonic ASM" as even the much vaunted Sunburn is only a mach 2-3 ASM.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post14 May 2012, 17:22

http://defensetech.org/2012/05/10/navy- ... -on-ships/

ONR wants to capitalize on the work it’s done with BAE Systems to marry lasers to the Mk 38 chain guns. :idea:

Office of Naval Research is moving forward with a plan to arm ships with solid state lasers capable of taking out small enemy vessels that could be used in swarming attacks or suicide bombing mission against American warships. (..or other applications):devil:

Want to sell your laser to the Navy? You’re in luck, ONR is hosting an industry day on May 16 “to provide the research and development community with information about the program,” reads the service’s announcement. Potential laser-dealers can expect a request for proposals soon after that, according the announcement.
:D
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post14 May 2012, 17:43

emc2 wrote:
stereospace wrote:
emc2 wrote:The UK, unlike the US has some sort of defense against sea skimming missiles in the T45. So if the US wants to attack Syria, Iran or Russia it would have to to be defended by UK or french ships.


CIWS & RAM don't count? http://youtu.be/Zdp9llrBLnA
:roll:


No. CIWS is useless against even subsonic and especially if there is any interference from other ships/helicopters/chaff. Hypersonic swarms tats change direction and come from all angles, while bypassing the escorts and going straight for a Carrier. No chance.

The USN and government has expressed the explicit fear that the carriers and completely vulnerable against Russian missiles. Syria and Iran have then, seen any chance of a US carrier going near their shore?

Or better yet, a SM-6 fired in Launch-On-Remote mode cued by offboard sensors and nailing the incoming cruise missile hundred of kilometers distant.


Yeah, good luck with catching a mach 5 or mach 7 missile with a mach 3.5 missile.
And I hope you can fire six at once and hit every incoming target.


Surely you must be joking. Krypton missiles are decently representative of WarPac ASMs, IMO. They are a very large target that can be intercepted miles out. Other things like the Kayak aren't even supersonic, and would be CIWS fodder.

Hypersonic swarms that change direction and come from all angles? You haven't been reading too much Dale Brown, even his writing is (marginally) more reasonable than that. The turning radius of any true hypersonic vehicle will be measured in small countries, and the heat flare/exhaust radar return will make a rather juicy target for a RAM/ESSM.

Your assertions are completely baseless. The reason USN carriers don't approach the Syrian coast because there is no need to, and they do come within relatively close range of the Iranian coast. This occurs because USN antimissile defense is capable of dealing with any conceivable threat missile the Iranians would be able to pull out of the sand.

You are also discounting the possibility of using an SSGN to trash the missile launch sites with BGM-109s, or Super Hornets striking the target with SLAM-ERs, granting a potential radius of action of over 600 miles. Either way, the ASM sites would hardly know what hit them.
Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

Unread post14 May 2012, 18:52

southernphantom - I wouldn't go so far as to state that the USN can approach Iran's shore. They can, but they'll be taking unnecessary risks, if the ships close within visual range of the Iranian shore (they may not have a choice) the targeting requirements for the Iranians plummits. As for Hornets dealing with missile sites, that's hoping against hope. Unless the Iranians are terminally stupid, they will have dispersed their ASCMs along the entire shoreline and hidden those missiles. In fact, I would be surprised if the USN hits a significant fraction of the existing ASCM launch sites at the beginning of the conflict.


As for the SM-6 and the E-2D, I think that's more to deal with those missiles that have a subsonic cruise stage followed by a supersonic terminal stage. Sizzler is the prime example, though Krypton's fighter carry can be called a 'subsonic stage.' Its much easier to shoot something further out, when its going slow, then trying a terminal engagement. (Yet another argument for effective AEW)

Here is one point to think about, the current class of Russian and Chinese missiles seem to be predominately focused on fighter carry, as those two countries mainly do fighters right now. What happens when China finally transitions to making its own long range strike bombers.
Offline

emc2

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2012, 12:55

Unread post14 May 2012, 19:12

arkadyrenko wrote:Here is one point to think about, the current class of Russian and Chinese missiles seem to be predominately focused on fighter carry, as those two countries mainly do fighters right now. What happens when China finally transitions to making its own long range strike bombers.


They can also be fired from a ISO standard shipping container, they are quite common at sea.. and on land
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post14 May 2012, 20:40

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the PRC is building new or upgrading Xian H-6 Badgers. These can carry C-801 missiles.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 May 2012, 20:46

C-801 is a subsonic AShM similar to an Exocet or Harpoon.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

Unread post14 May 2012, 21:02

I don't know if they're building new Badgers, they are upgrading them though.

Luckily, because they're old airframes, they can't close as well with the battle group and thus they need longer range anti-ship missiles. Currently, that probably means that they have to stick to subsonic cruise missiles. Think of it this way, the Chinese have to use B-52's to attack a battle group. You aren't going to stick a relatively short ranged missile on that airframe because it'll be eaten up by the CAP before it gets into launching range. The next missile upgrade should be some version of the sizzler, subsonic cruise to avoid the CAP followed by supersonic sprint.

The next generation of Chinese bombers, if they are being designed to replicate the Tu-22 network, will have to be stealthier or faster in order to allow it to close with the battle group and launch more kinematically advanced weapons. If they can get something to rotary launch Kh-15s, that will be a nasty way of attacking battle groups.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24873
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 May 2012, 21:41

Resuming normal transmission... back to thread topic...

Government drops plan to buy F-35 for navy’s aircraft carriers 11 May 2012 By Sam Shead

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/mi ... 67.article

"...A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said the F-35B will begin trial flights off the HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2018. The official completion date for HMS Prince of Wales has not been announced but a decision will be taken on whether the ship will be put into operation in the 2015 SDSR."
______________________________

U.K. May Overhaul Management of Carrier Program May 14, 2012 By ANDREW CHUTER

www.defensenews.com/article/20120514/DE ... |FRONTPAGE

"...Now, with no conversion costs for cats and traps, the country is holding out the prospect of having a continuous presence, with the second carrier providing capability while the first vessel is in maintenance.

The MoD admits there is no decision on budgeting for the crew or support for a second carrier, and said the next strategic defense and security review planned for 2015 would decide the issue....."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 May 2012, 22:19

Deleted
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests