AW159 Wildcat Helicopter (RN & AAC)

[ArmChairCivvy]

MATCH

What might that be, an accronym I haven't come across?

[marktigger]

MAnned Torpedo Carrying Helicopter

[marktigger]

rummour I heard is a BaE frigate design may have to do a complete re design of its hanger ares as they have designed it for Lynx not wildcat and it won't fit

[arfah]

...................

[bobp]

Rumour or wind up?

Or bullshit?

[marktigger]

we shall see 26 i know is merlin and who knows how far 31 is

[Ron5]

Somebody's winding you up. Wildcats are currently operating out of hangars designed for Lynx. Not surprising given their respective dimensions.

[marktigger]

T23 was buit for merlin type 45 was designed to hold 2 lynx/wildcat this design is meant for 1 lynx

[RichardIC]

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... t_Ship.pdf

SoS letter of October 2014 specifically states on T26:

The spacious hangar can easily accommodate a single Merlin Helicopter or two Wildcat;

Been a bit of yarn spinning going on.

And the real freakin joke is that this letter's almost two years old. Still, doubt Wildcat has got any fatter in the meantime.

[marktigger]

I wasn't 26 he was talking abut either. I'd suggest there is more plans of 31 done than we suspect.

[bobp]

I wasn't 26 he was talking abut either. I'd suggest there is more plans of 31 done than we suspect.

So we have several competing designs for the T31 and the completion has only just begun. And as there is little difference between a Lynx and Lynx Wildcat I cant see what the problem could be so I repeat my previous comment which is Bullshit.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the completion has only just begun

If that was meant to say "competition" the process is taking a shape of more of a peer-to-peer design review where representatives from at least the two contenders are included and will evaluate the match with requirements, and how the alternative configs (e.g. propulsion choice) can make them sit on a better point of that capability/ cost curve
- next question: what requirements? Will they be reverse-engineered from the best "match" arrived at?

[bobp]

Yes it was meant to read competition my apologies for the typo. Obviously the T31 is going to be driven by price and perhaps that part of the discussion should be continued in the appropriate and now mega thread.

[RichardIC]

I'd suggest there is more plans of 31 done than we suspect.

I'd suggest there isn't, but if you have evidence to the contrary then fine. But really, work so detailed that confusion between Lynx and Wildcat would mean a return to the drawing board!?

[Ron5]

... and perhaps that part of the discussion should be continued in the appropriate and now mega thread.

Do we have to? (groan)

[bobp]

Do we have to? (groan)

Groan indeed....

[arfah]

...................

[Timmymagic]

New video on Sea Venom from MBDA.



Interesting that Mark Sheehan mentions a 20km range. Sea Skua has at least 25km. I know the Sea Venom is smaller in overall weight, but has a similar warhead to Sea Skua, but I would have thought the RN would have insisted on a increased range or at the very least the same. It seems to be the midpoint between Sea Skua and AS15TT range though. Perhaps that and it's overall weight indicates a desire to maximise export orders...? Perhaps its the usual understatement in range at play...

[shark bait]

Ranges are always understated at the beginning. Interesting to see the land attack option reconfirmed and the missile is operator steerable in flight, that's something I didn't know.

At the rate we're going its looking like our only Naval missile.

[Gabriele]

Just like ground based air defence, it looks all compressed on the "Low" side. Where is the "high" part...? Sea Venom and LMM are a duplication. A triplication, in some ways, considering there already was Brimstone to begin with. Lots of good weapons to pick off fast attack crafts and corvettes, but nothing you'd actually want to be using to attack a big warship with serious SAMs on board.

[Timmymagic]

That's why I think the range figures must be out (unless that implies a low level attack with data link to a low flying helicopter limitation). Otherwise why not just pick Brimstone 2? And just fire more of them. You're right about the overlap. LMM makes sense (but also probably precludes the UK adding APKWS to CRV7). Brimstone makes sense. But Sea Venom? Sometimes I look at it and think wouldn't Brimstone 2 make more sense? Or a variant of SPEAR 3? We know SPEAR 3 will have a datalink, and by the sounds of it a vastly superior range (with smaller warhead). But it also brings a great deal more capability as a land attack weapon in the littoral. The only thing I can see that makes Sea Venom superior in the eyes of the Navy is it's utility in a modern cluttered littoral environment with strict ROE. I would have thought that it wouldn't have been beyond the wit of man to include these in a SPEAR 3 variant though...

[LordJim]

Sea Venom and LMM are NOT designed to be used by the Wildcat against anything larger than a corvette if that. Their role is the same as Sea Skua with range and warhead applicable to different targets. Brimstone falls into the middle ground with the Wildcat probably able to carry the same number as it does Sea Venom with less range, or greater range but smaller numbers then LMM. If the AAC Wildcats were also fitted for Brimstone then doing the same for the Navy might be a possibility, but it seems the AAC are going to use theirs more as a replacement for the Lynx AH9 than an armed scout helicopter,

Complex weapons is one area we are doing well in though the ambitious SPEAR programme may balls it all up if it produces a UK only bespoke system.

[shark bait]

I have always struggled with the justification for Sea Venom, as others have mentioned above it appears to occupy a space similar to other systems.

I have no doubt it will be a capable missile, but its makes me question was a bespoke solution the best option? would the other systems do a reasonable job? would that save resources to fill some of the other capability gaps?

[RetroSicotte]

Sea Venom exists because the 2010 Defence Agreement with France exists. They don't have Brimstone, Spike-NLOS or Martlet (LMM) and none of them are French (so thus they will not buy them).

It's an insistence from France that they want to co-develop one. It's a weapon of diplomacy and politics to have to make up and use to demonstrate "cooperation".

Yet again I find myself wondering just what it is we get out of this deal with the French.

[Gabriele]

It is not even that, actually. France did not want Sea Venom, didn't feel a real need for it, and it took some struggling (and months of delay) to bring them on board and get them to splash out the money for it. The requirement wasn't really there and to this day it is questionable how many they will actually want to buy and use.
The Royal Navy wants Sea Venom strongly. I'm just not really sure why, sincerely. LMM, CRV-7, Sea Venom and Brimstone are too many, and too much "similar" in what they can do. The proposed laser-guided CRV-7 would have been just as good as LMM (for the air to ground role, at least); Brimstone would have been good for larger anti-FAC and anti-corvette business... what continues to not be there is something decent at targeting ships with actual claws.