Thanks Thanks:  30
Likes Likes:  76
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 101 to 115 of 115
  1. #101
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The ultimate control of sea lanes and Surveillance, reconnaissance , Interdiction within it, is the bailiwick of submarines such as the Swedish Gotland class with AIP. They have only 5 boats which has the US Navy agog after losing a Nuclear Carrier on paper more than once. we do need a sub hunt capability with an edge.
    Every Allied SSK nation has claimed to kill a CVN at some point during exercises, of course there's no way to know in reality just how accurate that is, for the simple reason that SSK's even with AIP are really "mobile Minefields" that require the enemy to cooperate in positioning. It's beyond "Hovertank" nonsense to suggest them.

  2. Likes The real Jack, DeV, ropebag liked this post
  3. #102
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.
    Do the 139's have any of the maritime systems needed? Salt corrosion protection, safety features, landing modifications? More over they carry none of the Martime control features (Sonar/Weapon fits) of the true Maritime Helicopters so other than just flying around with a door gunner what value would they add? The NH90 has issues (pretty much ever system does) but as far as I know it is being worked through for fixes.
    CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.
    Do consider that for MCM many of the current/future systems are "drone" based rather than the conventional systems of the past, that's not to say that the 60's would be ideal but could have investment in that area if we wanted.

    I like this idea
    In terms of Brexit, I think it's too early to tell what exactly we'll need, I mean there's a good chance the NI/ROI water board is going to need patrolling as well for example, wonder what those custom boats are doing?

  4. #103
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.

  5. #104
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.
    Which that SSK's have limited ranges/capabilities compared to SSN's, that USN CVN battlegroups in a true combat situation might not be as obliging as to sail into an area with known SSK units without the area already being swept? Like I said I've read of everyone from the Canadians to the Australian's getting Mission Kills on CVN's with SSK's, but there is no real meteric to determine if that's how things would play out. SSK's are ideal for "chokepoint areas" where forces have to come to them, we aren't one of those positions, nor are we going to be doing the "sneaky shite" that SSK's do.

    Moreover yes it is stupid to be suggesting we need/move towards Sub forces. There are plenty of major NATO and otherwise nations that struggle massively with sustaining SSK forces, suggesting we should have them is Walter Mitty nonsense.

  6. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  7. #105
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,119
    Post Thanks / Like
    If we do dare to go down the Naval Heli route then surely anything we get should be a tried and tested, widely used type. When the Kiwis got their OPVs, they stuck with the Seasprites, whith whom they had familiarity on the ANZAC frigates, even though their neighbours were binning their Seasprites and going for S70s instead.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  8. Likes Turkey liked this post
  9. #106
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.



    CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.




    I like this idea
    I don't know a lot about Strales but sounds good to reduce costs (but your still probably going to need an AD radar)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Do the 139's have any of the maritime systems needed? Salt corrosion protection, safety features, landing modifications? More over they carry none of the Martime control features (Sonar/Weapon fits) of the true Maritime Helicopters so other than just flying around with a door gunner what value would they add? The NH90 has issues (pretty much ever system does) but as far as I know it is being worked through for fixes.

    Do consider that for MCM many of the current/future systems are "drone" based rather than the conventional systems of the past, that's not to say that the 60's would be ideal but could have investment in that area if we wanted.



    In terms of Brexit, I think it's too early to tell what exactly we'll need, I mean there's a good chance the NI/ROI water board is going to need patrolling as well for example, wonder what those custom boats are doing?
    I very much doubt that BREXIT will require lots of smaller patrol boats (much easier to use an unapproved road), the only places may be on the high seas (depending on the fisheries aspects) and Rockall.

    IMHO MCMVs aren't suited to the CPV role but a suitably equipped could do some MCMV work (with limitations).

    A major issue with the NH90 is that every user has a different fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.
    Hover subs

  10. #107
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    If we do dare to go down the Naval Heli route then surely anything we get should be a tried and tested, widely used type. When the Kiwis got their OPVs, they stuck with the Seasprites, whith whom they had familiarity on the ANZAC frigates, even though their neighbours were binning their Seasprites and going for S70s instead.
    To be honest "tried and tested, widely used type" should be the byword for our procurement instead of "bespoke". So yeah something that's widely used (I'd look at European given global events) but I'd also look at a larger combined order, ie something for the Navy but with a variant for the Army that is deployable for EUBG/UN operations. Also from memory the Australian's tried upgrading their Seasprites and had to abandon the project, whereas the Kiwi's stuck with the bog standard that they already had.

  11. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  12. #108
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,119
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    To be honest "tried and tested, widely used type" should be the byword for our procurement instead of "bespoke". So yeah something that's widely used (I'd look at European given global events) but I'd also look at a larger combined order, ie something for the Navy but with a variant for the Army that is deployable for EUBG/UN operations. Also from memory the Australian's tried upgrading their Seasprites and had to abandon the project, whereas the Kiwi's stuck with the bog standard that they already had.
    Yes and no. The Kiwis were using the Kaman like the aussies, from the introduction of the ANZAC. Australia wanted to upgrade their Seasprites, but there was serious delays and cost overruns, and they cancelled the upgrade. NZ then bought the converted aussie airframes.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  13. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  14. #109
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Yes and no. The Kiwis were using the Kaman like the aussies, from the introduction of the ANZAC. Australia wanted to upgrade their Seasprites, but there was serious delays and cost overruns, and they cancelled the upgrade. NZ then bought the converted aussie airframes.
    Ah, was that it, I remembered that there was some cock up from the Australian side, smart buy from the Kiwi's so.

  15. #110
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    811
    Post Thanks / Like
    This thread should be kept exclusively naval with a clear understanding of the naval contribution to defence. I know submarines are expensive such as Scorpene at 450m USD. Saying it isn't as good as an SSN is only true for maximum ranges but Scorpene has a usable range of 6,500nm. With airless propulsion the SSK is a deadly foe. My view is if we are going to use and guide UUV's then why not also use a manned version to gain the concepts of underwater operations such as recently at Blackrock.
    As regards Strales and CIWS they are not really comparable , the former is going to deal with threatening targets at longer range at up to 120rpm, while the CIWS will hose its targets until they no longer paint on tracking radar at rates around 4,500rpm. It's not intended our ships would have a retained helicopter but rather a copious flight deck with fuelling and assist start after shut down.

  16. #111
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    This thread should be kept exclusively naval with a clear understanding of the naval contribution to defence. I know submarines are expensive such as Scorpene at 450m USD. Saying it isn't as good as an SSN is only true for maximum ranges but Scorpene has a usable range of 6,500nm. With airless propulsion the SSK is a deadly foe. My view is if we are going to use and guide UUV's then why not also use a manned version to gain the concepts of underwater operations such as recently at Blackrock.
    As regards Strales and CIWS they are not really comparable , the former is going to deal with threatening targets at longer range at up to 120rpm, while the CIWS will hose its targets until they no longer paint on tracking radar at rates around 4,500rpm. It's not intended our ships would have a retained helicopter but rather a copious flight deck with fuelling and assist start after shut down.
    Wait, what connection is UUV's and ROV's (the second used at Blackrock) to SSK's? An SSK would not be used in such an area and isn't intended for SAR. As to the costs it's much more than just the sticker price, there's the increase in training equipment needed, payment into rescue support capability, significant increase in skill sets/equipment in the dockyard to support an SSK maintenance regime (or send it abroad), also at least 3 would have to be bought to be viable as a system. Even if you just bought 1 (which wouldn't make sense) then I'd be surprised at the end of the day if you got much change out of 700m-1 billion when all was said and done.

    As to capabilities, an SSK's "usuable range" isn't the issue, the issue is it's charge capacity/rates, that's my point around "mobile minefields/chokepoints", unless an enemy force obliges by coming to them, then the SSK has to burn valuable charge to move at speed to alter it's position, which when you add in the noise of snorkling then SSK's do have limits. Moreover there does seem to be some disagreement with AIP with the new Japanese subs not mounting them. Take for example using them in a defensive situation along the West Coast (just suppose), we also lack enough long range MPA or Sat surveillance to tell us an enemy course/position/speed, so an SSK would most likely spend a significant amount of it's battery trying to maneuver against a force that can pick it's attack angle from all of the Atlantic. It's just not credible.

    It's not credible to look at either a) where we are and b) what we should be looking to develop and grow and then jump to "we should have subs". As I've pointed out there are far larger nations with Sub experience that have/had significant issues (both mechanical and personnel) in operations of subs. Can we stick to sensible and realistic
    Last edited by Sparky42; 13th April 2017 at 22:59. Reason: additional point

  17. Thanks DeV, Herald thanked for this post
    Likes The real Jack liked this post
  18. #112
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    811
    Post Thanks / Like
    I never said we should buy SSK's. I am interested in increasing our underwater capabilities to included manned submersibles for underwater work not unsimilar to Blackrock or for covert work. We have put divers down below standard depths, so an ability to visual survey areas pre diving would be an asset. These commercial level subs are usually crewed by 2/4 crew and observers with external handling and recovery equipment .
    Long range SSK's or SSN's do not need continual guidance other than their on board interfaces with designated Satellite systems. They have long range passive acoustic detection equipment for targets or just maintain a launching profile if they are an SSBM type. The MPA's ,if you have them ,are looking for other peoples Submarines. The reason the British MPA's used to survey our West Coast is that it is Submarine Alley from the North of Scotland to Mid Atlantic for their own SSN's and those of the Russian Navy.
    Continual negativity will leave our navy short of meeting our stated mission in full. We can never be effective unless we can detect and respond. It is as simple as that.

  19. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  20. #113
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I never said we should buy SSK's. I am interested in increasing our underwater capabilities to included manned submersibles for underwater work not unsimilar to Blackrock or for covert work. We have put divers down below standard depths, so an ability to visual survey areas pre diving would be an asset. These commercial level subs are usually crewed by 2/4 crew and observers with external handling and recovery equipment .
    Long range SSK's or SSN's do not need continual guidance other than their on board interfaces with designated Satellite systems. They have long range passive acoustic detection equipment for targets or just maintain a launching profile if they are an SSBM type. The MPA's ,if you have them ,are looking for other peoples Submarines. The reason the British MPA's used to survey our West Coast is that it is Submarine Alley from the North of Scotland to Mid Atlantic for their own SSN's and those of the Russian Navy.
    Continual negativity will leave our navy short of meeting our stated mission in full. We can never be effective unless we can detect and respond. It is as simple as that.
    Safer (and much cheaper) to use ROVs

  21. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  22. #114
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Going for one mode of investigation over another is often a false choice. In any environmental survey above or below surface it is beneficial to do both a mix of manned and unmanned sorties to build up a complete knowledge of the environment and the associated technologies to explore it safely and completely. I am happy to close the argument and leave it to the Naval Diving section. The sea was never a safe place for mariners.

  23. Likes Turkey liked this post
  24. #115
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Going for one mode of investigation over another is often a false choice. In any environmental survey above or below surface it is beneficial to do both a mix of manned and unmanned sorties to build up a complete knowledge of the environment and the associated technologies to explore it safely and completely. I am happy to close the argument and leave it to the Naval Diving section. The sea was never a safe place for mariners.
    which is why NSDS have a ROV

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •