UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

ASDOT

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 18 Sep 2017, 03:25

And some of us are better informed and don't need to flip coins :-)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Sep 2017, 09:24

You obviously have a better source than Janes (quoted upthread)?

Notable that the "fighty Gripen" prgrm started with the idea of reusing the airframes from "C"s and that idea was then dropped when it became clear that payload (fuel +weapons) would not be competitive in the fighter market - so for that part, brand new (and bigger) airframes are being manufactured.

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: ASDOT

Postby indeid » 18 Sep 2017, 09:41

Ron5 wrote:And some of us are better informed and don't need to flip coins :-)


Yeah, but if DE&S are reviewing the bids and awarding the contract a coin flip might be the best predicting method.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby jimthelad » 18 Sep 2017, 22:36

Remember Ron knows best :roll:

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 18 Sep 2017, 23:33

Not hard to know more than you Sunny Jim.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2382
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby RetroSicotte » 19 Sep 2017, 00:37

Gonna stamp on this one before it goes anywhere. Take it to PM, guys. Not in threads.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 21 Sep 2017, 19:06

ArmChairCivvy wrote:You obviously have a better source than Janes (quoted upthread)?

Notable that the "fighty Gripen" prgrm started with the idea of reusing the airframes from "C"s and that idea was then dropped when it became clear that payload (fuel +weapons) would not be competitive in the fighter market - so for that part, brand new (and bigger) airframes are being manufactured.


Both Aviation Week and Flight Global have stories on the recently announced Gripon aggressor that make it clear the program is for new build aircraft. They both point out that the SAAB new build aircraft would find it hard to compete with refurbished military aircraft offered by the other consortia in the US program and repeated my orginal question: how low can SAAB go with the price?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Sep 2017, 08:59

Not low enough if you look at the line up
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... t-training
that they are up against

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 22 Sep 2017, 16:41

The USAF defines three levels of aggressor they are interested in. From a Mig-21 capability up to a Typhoon level. It's not clear that any of the refurbished ex-military jets being talked about, can actually do level 3. Hence Gripon Aggressor.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Sep 2017, 06:54

Finally, Tiffie Tranche 1 exports beckoning :)

More seriously, as part of these discussions (for the RAF) it was quoted that 25% (!) of the annual hours flown by the combined Typhoon fleet are in the "red air" role. So, we better burn those hours off them (tranche 1s) ourselves - still leaves the problem that the Hawks also doing the same role soon won't be no more.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 23 Sep 2017, 08:32

Fighting your own aircraft type in aggressor type training is pretty useless.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Sep 2017, 10:24

Ron5 wrote: is pretty useless.


It has drawbacks, but I would not go quite that far in the description. If those 25% of the total hrs have produced a useless result, then...

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby whitelancer » 23 Sep 2017, 14:42

Ron5 wrote:Fighting your own aircraft type in aggressor type training is pretty useless.


One could argue that fighting against less capable platforms, which aggressors usually are is pretty useless!
Ideally of course you would want to train against all the possible aircraft types you might meet in combat. As this is all but impossible you have to do the best you can.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 23 Sep 2017, 16:39

You don't need to form aggressor squadrons if they're just going to be equipped with the same aircraft type because the pilots already have practiced against their own type within their own squadron. The point of aggressor squadrons is to learn how to develop tactics against aircraft that don't behave like yours.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby whitelancer » 23 Sep 2017, 17:20

The point I was trying to make was that practising against the same type of aircraft particularly when flow by experienced and capable pilots, is not a useless exercise. It will however only get you so far. Similarly, dissimilar air combat training against an aircraft that is not one you are likely to face in combat will also only get you so far.

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Location: Cyprus

Re: ASDOT

Postby Smokey » 23 Sep 2017, 17:53

Dissimilar Air Combat Training.

The U.S. has ex-Moldovan MiG.29's which seem to be very camera shy (as was with MiG.21's,23's and SU.22's). Maybe they are no longer flyable?

There are NATO nations with MiG.29's that provide DACT for NATO units on pre-deployment, particularly countering the Off-Boresight HMCS / R60 Aphid AAM capability that the Russian aligned nations use.

When the MiG's are retired from national service, what then? ...........?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Sep 2017, 18:14

Smokey wrote:When the MiG's are retired from national service, what then? ...........?


Egypt is getting close to 50 (Algeria cancelled the order long ago). They are our allies (surely, as the US has been giving, sorry selling, bns worth of hardware) and over Sahara there's plenty of empty airspace ;)

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Location: Cyprus

Re: ASDOT

Postby Smokey » 23 Sep 2017, 18:44

The Algerian's MiGs were taken in by Russia (MiG.29 SMT).

Good point about unlimited airspace, better weather too.

I think Sardinia would be a better option though as it is familiar to NATO and less likely to be interrupted by internal politics and fanatics.

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: ASDOT

Postby indeid » 25 Sep 2017, 16:56

It was mentioned, but there just isn't the airspace available in the UK to do the sort of full up training that you need high end dedicated aggressor units for.

A pilot could happily get to LCR standard against their own type and EW support, CR would need different types, as would multi ships.

Routine training is usually set Red serials which have to be responded to. The limited airspace makes much more than 2v2 difficult outside exercises and a 40/50nm split puts you in a tactical fight straight away.

A good Red tactics element at the Air Warfare Centre and the ability to emulate the correct EW hits are key.

And it will be harder for F35!

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Spinflight » 19 Mar 2018, 08:23

BAe, Boeing and LM all ditched at the PQQ stage.

Leaves Cobham/Draken, Babcock/Elbit and Thales/Textron.

Hence Daggers and the like, Textron Scorpions or the Babcock / Elbit bid which is completely opaque to me. Anyone know anything about it?

Supposedly one more with previously mentioned vapour ware F-16s.

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Spinflight » 29 Jun 2018, 19:35

ASDOT delayed yet again. RFP now due late August.. Probably a favour to Babcock.

Meanwhile 736 NAS due to stand down in 2020 which would effectively leave the RN without aggressor training. RAF could take up some slack but not all of it.

Which itself would impact upon FOST and every tub we send into harms way potentially. Calibrating widgets and gizmos is quite important in the grand scheme of things.

No change in the likely proposals. Except Babcock still don't appear to have an actual aggressor...

The other vapourware bid has been very naughty with it's penny and paperclip management it appears.

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: ASDOT

Postby indeid » 29 Jun 2018, 22:35

Spinflight wrote:ASDOT delayed yet again. RFP now due late August.. Probably a favour to Babcock.

Meanwhile 736 NAS due to stand down in 2020 which would effectively leave the RN without aggressor training. RAF could take up some slack but not all of it.

Which itself would impact upon FOST and every tub we send into harms way potentially. Calibrating widgets and gizmos is quite important in the grand scheme of things.

No change in the likely proposals. Except Babcock still don't appear to have an actual aggressor...

The other vapourware bid has been very naughty with it's penny and paperclip management it appears.


736NAS fly a lot of serials for FOST, but mainly as Blue or Red Fast Air to be controlled or defended against. The EW serials are flown by Cobham, which includes simulating the signature of a hostile radar and the Falcon 'dropping off' a 736NAS Hawk to continue the run as the missile. Cobham also have the MOD calibration work with a different platform, and I am fairly sure that BIH have a calibration role for the RN too.

Freddie and Observer training will be a big draw on the Hawks as well.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: ASDOT

Postby Dahedd » 30 Jun 2018, 00:19

Just buy/lease the bloody Scorpion :crazy:

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Spinflight » 30 Jun 2018, 00:46

Dahedd wrote:Just buy/lease the bloody Scorpion :crazy:


If you go entirely subsonic there's much better to be had, for less, than the Scorpion.

There are very good reasons no-one has bought the buggers.

And Asdot has no capital hence even a new build turkey isn't really feasible.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Jun 2018, 09:13

Spinflight wrote:Leaves Cobham/Draken, Babcock/Elbit and Thales/Textron.


I guess these guys are still there, too?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/leonard ... mpetition/


Return to “Joint Service”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests