UK Defence Forum

This also from RUSI does a little to explain the differences between the CAPTOR-E variants; Other partner states are not yet signed up to such a comprehensive sensor-suite upgrade, although Italy has showed interest, particularly in the radar 2 version of CAPTOR-E. Spain and Germany are currently co...

Tighter integration with our FPDA friends and other allies in the Indo-Pacific is a reasonable objective. Integrating them into a carrier group could be a great way to achieve that.

However I do question wheres the value basing anything out there long term, never mind a carrier?

Yeah the others have been recently set up to manage the huge A320 demand, now building nearly two per day! Tempest production shared between Italy, Sweden and UK will total a couple of hundred units, and is more likely to be two a month, no where near enough to make a second line practical.

Different. Each of those European lines is producing different products.

It's real difficult to justify duplicating production lines for the low volumes we're expecting with Tempest. There's no technical reason to do it, only political.

I don't think there is a problem with a single country having a monopoly of final assembly. For example if Italy had final assembly of Tempest there would still be loads of high tech manufacturing done in the UK and Sweden who could be supplying fully fitted out modules to the assembly line. This is...

The aim is to develop a next-generation, low-cost combat aircraft ... and to do it in at least half the time it took to bring the Eurofighter to front-line service. Very glad to see this front and centre. They must prioritise practicality and affordability over absolute performance otherwise there ...

I’d say the LSDs are most ripe for culling They're cheap to run, and in high demand. The Bay class spends the more time at sea than any other in UK service! I can't see them being cut. The LPD's on the other hand..... The MN will have 11 ASW “capable” ships v the RN 8, does the RN need more? Yes. T...

Which once again shows what an idiotic move it was to bin Fort George!! Someone who served on both Fort classes told me "The new forts were built for a very niche role, expensive to run, over engineered pieces of shit" So I guess they looked at the spread sheet and couldn't afford to keep...

Timmymagic wrote:I remember when it was 12 and 12, then 12 and 8....now 8 and 6...

Wishful thinking. When was the last time the RAF deployed 12 typhoon overseas? Ever?

Its steeling the limelight from the Typhoons! They often post pictures of the fast jets on QRA, but rarely the tanker, that's a good thing for the RAF.

I would say with the way USV and UUV's are going the a 90 meter ship is starting to look a bit tight I tend to agree, especially considering the extra large unmanned vehicles the RN expect to be operating in the future. The bigger and more generic the better, just needs to be something to put 'stuf...

From my decidedly non-engineering background, I propose three ways of potentially going about providing enhanced aviation support, with costs and complexity rising massively with capability: Aviation capacity is not the problem. The Navy has got more capacity, and fewer aircraft than it's had in de...

The cheapest option (whilst preserving a credible navy), would be to keep Govan building at a 18mth drumbeat for FFs and DDs with say 24yr lifespans, get Appledore (or another) up and running building sub 100m ships on a 12mth drumbeat (with 20yr lifespans) and another yard building RFAs every two ...

A quick and dirty comparison of Naval Auxiliaries from around the world. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcOqUJNXgAIjLot?format=png&name=900x900 The Farnco-Italian design and Navantia's might both be a tad small Plus simple tankers do not convert well because zero consideration given to intermediate...

Easy to say, but there are no modern solid support ships. The closest is the USNS Lewis and Clark, which is two decades old now, everything else has been a tanker apart from the odd ball HNLMS Karel Doorman.

Yeah, that 'strategy' isn't worth the paper its written on.

That's the theory;

Saving=1*A^(LOG(B)/LOG(2))
Where units A = 8 and learning rate B = 0.9

Plug the numbers in and you get 0.73

Plug in 3 years and you get roughly what your mate said.

My proposal: - Cut 3 T23s and activate the second LPD - these then make up the core of the two LRGS - Cut a class of MCMs and keep the three LSDs as MCM motherships but secondary logistical ships for transporting an Army brigade. Cutting assets that are used all the time to fund assets that are rar...

donald_of_tokyo wrote:No money is no money, this is the point.

Well not quite, there is £1.5 billion in the budget for new build auxiliaries. After that everything is committed for the next decade.

Ron5 wrote:A survey not long ago revealed ASW specialist designs attracted a 25% premium.

And after a production run of 8 ships you'll have knocked 30% of the build cost.

It is well worth caring about. If they look like a little subset of the Army they don't appear particularly valuable to their pay masters. If they are the guys who can be on the ground quickly to counter hybrid or insurgent threat they can carve out a valuable niche for themselves.

Anything that shakes of their image of stomping round the desert in a land locked country. I understand the Marines don't want to look like a mini army anymore, and they want to spend more time out and about doing cool stuff. The Future force proposal can achieve that, and without a significant cash...

The LSS has nothing particularly magic about it and while it might carry several boats / ORCs it is highly unlikely to have any real ability to land heavy stores and vehicles unless she can use a port or go real close to shore to make do with Mexeflotes. The sooner this basic reality is understood,...

Yep, and not it's like having a quiet ship is bad for an AAW destroyer, plus spending a little more on some higher spec machinery is small fry compared designing and starting up production of a new type.

Good luck Thanks for the support Ron, and I've already mad it there mate. All I can say is at the main gate decision meeting, nobody has ever said "this project doesn't employ enough bloody expensive engineers, please go back and redesign more stuff for no benefit!" Truth is almost everyt...