Some unrelated recent military procurment storiess since I am getting bored of Ukraine

[Adar]

The Royal Danish Navy disagree's. They have been using modular design for decades now with great success and have commissioned rather large warships at an unbeatable price compared to comparable western designs. Granted we have problems with our 3 latest warships, entirely due to the Folketing being complete idiots and not wanting to have them fully equipped as intended when they were ordered to be built.

What ships and what modules? This would be interesting to read but my google-fu in Danish is limited even if I am able to read it without much trouble.

[Condottiere 40K]

Rate of fire of a machine gun is dependent on what you wanted to achieve. One reason for a very high rate would be to engage a fast moving target or one that you only get a few seconds to shoot at.

[Adar]

Apparently the Dutch embarassed themselves by being caught with their pants down and a half empty bottle of baby oil when Admiral Kuznetsov came sailing by:

Years of budget cuts have undermined the ability of European countries to perform routine military missions, such as accompanying Russian vessels as they sail close to their territorial waters.The Royal Netherlands Navy has been among the hardest-hit of European armed forces—and now it painfully shows, as Moscow’s warships sail unchallenged near Dutch territory.
On May 8 Admiral Kuznetsovsailed through international waters in the English Channel, heading from the Mediterranean—where she had reinforced the Kremlin’s deployments around Ukraine—to her home port in northern Russia.
As Lieuwe De Vries and Ruben Veenstra reported, Admiral Kuznetsov and her task force of a cruiser, three tankers, an ocean-going tug and the landing ship Minsk took an unusual route returning to their home port.
“The Russians usually prefer to go around Ireland on the North Atlantic Ocean to avoid other maritime traffic,” the Dutch reporters wrote. “The journey plotted through the narrow waters can be seen as a typical show of force on behalf of the Russians.”
The Royal Navy dispatched the new air-defense destroyer HMS Dragon to sail alongside Admiral Kuznetsovbut, as the task force moved toward the North Sea, it was the Royal Netherlands Navy’s job to maintain the escort.
“The Royal Netherlands Navy already had made public its spotting of the Russians a few days earlier, when the HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën had picked it up on radar,” De Vries and Veenstra wrote. “But by the time the Kuznetsov arrived in the Dutch exclusive economic zone, De Zeven Provinciën had gone on its way for duties in Somali waters and no other ships were at hand for escort duties.”
Air power couldn’t help. The Dutch retired their entire fleet of P-3C Orion patrol aircraft in 2002. And in following years, the Dutch navy air arm, which once operated both maritime patrol aircraft and Lynx helicopters, totally disbanded.
Ten NH-90 helicopters, operated by the Defense Helicopter Command, replaced the 24 Lynx choppers and the eight P-3s. But helicopters are not the best assets for the long-range shadowing of enemy vessels.
“Instead of deploying a suitable response, the Netherlands Coast Guard was asked to deploy one of its Dornier-228 aircraft,” the reporters added. “Though capable in its intended role, the aircraft lacks any equipment to gather worthwhile electronic or photographic intelligence.”

The inability to provide a proper escort to the Russians is hardly surprising. Since the 1980s, the Dutch navy has drastically reduced its force from 56 to 23 ships, and 43 aircraft to none.

The US military vehicle industry look to be set for some severe setbacks as the US army will be relying on excess vehicles from the war on terrorism for the next few years.


Source


And a new book is coming out:



I am not a big fan of War is Boring but the hyperbole is in this case funny.

[Pielstick]

Another very controversial procurement programme:

http://theaviationist.com/2014/05/28...st-raf-flight/

[conon394]

Another very controversial procurement programme:

http://theaviationist.com/2014/05/28...st-raf-flight/

Why? I'm not seeing the controversy. The UK looks to be getting a good signals intelligence aircraft at likely far less then the cost of building from scratch.The refuling thing is a bit of annoyance but as the article points out most time the UK can likely depend on US/NATO capacity. I guess it really comes around to what kind of capacity you want to pay for. The Nimrod upgrade program was not doing well with the upgrade/rebuild and got canned so the UK did not have have too many options if it wanted to retain the capacity in question. A whole new project from the ground up with France and airbus? More and more money into Nimrod? Or Buy off the shelf from the US. In the larger policy perspective the UK has often opted for US cooperation and or colaboration. 3 planes is not a lot but every chip on the table counts.

[Pielstick]

Because the RC-135W is allegedly and inferior SIGINT platfrom to the Nimrod R1.

[Condottiere 40K]

I'm of the opinion that the equipment should be more or less aircraft agnostic, so you can choose the plane you're most comfortable with.

[conon394]

Because the RC-135W is allegedly and inferior SIGINT platfrom to the Nimrod R1.

In what way can you provide some more links and of course like a sensitive device, a SIGINT platform is going to be speculation. So far all I see is a loss of mid air refueling. Are you suggesting also lost functionality? Are UK sensors or Computers better? I can see the loss of domestic production but unless the UK was going to sell to at least NATO we are talking about few planes that were vastly over budget.

I agree the MRA4 upgrade looks good on paper but it simply was not working well in fact. It was a rebuild referb project anyway and that has its risks. With no new production the UK could not even even the basic plaform as an export, and the orginal populations seems to have been to small to find just the right set of candidates based on age or similarity etc.

[Farnan]

Anyone here qualified to comment on intelligence platforms won't.

[Pielstick]

In what way can you provide some more links and of course like a sensitive device, a SIGINT platform is going to be speculation. So far all I see is a loss of mid air refueling. Are you suggesting also lost functionality? Are UK sensors or Computers better?

At the time there were a few articles in the aviation press floating around saying that the Nimrod R1 had the more capable mission equipment, specifically in the area of ELINT, whereas the RC-135Ws mission fit is more biased towards COMINT. Of course nobody who is qualified to comment on this will in an official capacity, however the insinuation was that those in the Nimrod R1 community firmly believed the UK was procuring a less capable platform in the RC-135W.

However, please accept my sincerest apologies for having the temerity to suggest just the slightest possibility that just maybe American isn't always best.

[Condottiere 40K]

It may just be a question of availability, compared with the risk of trying to develop another platform independently.

I'm quite sure that Airbus would like to compete, especially since they have newer generation aircraft to offer.

[conon394]

However, please accept my sincerest apologies for having the temerity to suggest that just maybe American isn't always best.

That was not my point - rather just the most affordable. As I noted earlier I think we (the US) shoot our-self(s) in the foot often by insisting on waiting for home produce when viable alternatives are available from core and closely allied countries we trust rather a lot.

I did not mean to imply the US alternative was somehow better just because we made it but rather that it looks to be more affordable and its biggest disadvantage is refueling which should not really be in the context of NATO. As we all seem to agree that actual intelligence capacity of either plane is not anything that anyone who does not want to end up in Russia is going to post here. But surly the UK can add its own kit/software etc after market?

edit:

I guess my point is to keep almost everything produced at home and in storage the US spends a lot money a real lot as we all know. The UK as already kind of gave up on that ideal so it has to make choices based on that. The Nimrod upgrade seems to fall into that. As what as far as I can tell was an upgrade project it really needed to stay under/on budget. I got no problem with that were I British I would be happy to retain a independent capacity for another what 20 years... but w/o actual new production it seems to me once cost becomes an issue the UK as to look to either a deal with the US or with Europe to get the project done at a cost people are willing to pay and accept it might loose some of what it wanted.

[Pielstick]

Apologies conon I didn't mean to be short with you.

Actually much of the mission kit in the Nimrod R1 is American.

The controversy is thus:

The Nimrod R1 had two main mission systems - "Tigershark" and "Marlborough". These were deemed to be a better overall solution than the kit fitted to the RC-135W which is weighted much more in favour of COMINT/SIGINT. I've read that an RC-135W has only three ELINT specialists on board, whilst the R1 has ten. The belief is that in retiring R1 and going with RC-135W the UK will be reducing its ELINT capability.

Basically if you want to listen to some dude's mobile phone conversation or eavedrop on military communications then RC-135W is a superb platform. If you want to work out the other guy's electronic order of battle and pluck apart the various components of his air defence network the Nimrod was a considerably more capable platform. Not really a problem for the USAF as they also have the RC-135U which does all the ELINT stuff. The Nimrod R1 was seen as being a very good balance between COMINT/SIGINT and ELINT capabilities.

The R1 was operated by 51 Squadron, and by the nature of their work were a very secretive lot. What is known is 51 were held in extremely high regard by their US counterparts, and the Nimrod R1 (along with the now also retired Canberra PR9) was among the most highly sought after British assets by American commanders in joint operations.

The Nimrod R1 had a pretty significant upgrade with "Project Extract" headed by Raytheon in 2003. A further upgrade called "Project Helix" was in the pipeline and was to be carried out by a consortium led by L-3 Systems, including Lockheed, BAE Systems, QinetiQ and LogicaCMG. The Helix upgrade was part of the proposed Nimrod R5.

The Nimrod MRA4 was indeed an expensive mess and didn't do BAE any PR favours, but the programme was pretty much complete and on the verge of entering service. The MOD actually owned three surplus MRA4 developmental airframes that could have been used to fit the proposed Nimrod R5 mission kit and would by most accounts have been a considerably more capable ELINT platform than the RC-135W. The controversy is that the UK has now paid $1.1bn for less ELINT capability (which outside of counter insurgency type ops such as in Afghanistan is arguably the more important capability) when it's entirely possible the existing kit could have been fitted to one of the already built surplus MRA4 airframes for the same price and would have given better capability, let alone the possiblity of seeing the Helix upgrades fitted which were costed at £400m.

My understanding is the RAF aircraft will have pretty much exactly the same mission kit as the USAF aircraft have. The only real change is the aircraft will be fitted with the same model of the CFM-56 engine as the RAF uses on its E-3D Sentry.

However, it's a done deal now and for better or for worse the RAF is getting the RC-135W (named "Airseeker" by the RAF....yuk).

[Holger Danske]

What ships and what modules? This would be interesting to read but my google-fu in Danish is limited even if I am able to read it without much trouble.

The system is called STANFLEX. It was developed in the 1980's as a solution to replacing several classes of minor ships with a single class of multirole ships. It is used on all 9 different classes in the RDN, including the large Absalon and Ivar Huitfeldt and the new arctic Knud Rasmussen class. The former two classes cost about $300M (excluding weapons, per ship), which is a lot cheaper than any comparable ships that I know of.

I'm pretty sure the USN could develop a very good derivative of the STANFLEX, especially since they just have to copy it and make adjustments where needed. Also, an americanized Absalon would have been a far better choice for their LCS program, but as we all know it's entirely a political decision, and there is no way the USN would be sailing with foreign ship designs.

[conon394]

The system is called STANFLEX. It was developed in the 1980's as a solution to replacing several classes of minor ships with a single class of multirole ships. It is used on all 9 different classes in the RDN, including the large Absalon and Ivar Huitfeldt and the new arctic Knud Rasmussen class. The former two classes cost about $300M (excluding weapons, per ship), which is a lot cheaper than any comparable ships that I know of.

I'm pretty sure the USN could develop a very good derivative of the STANFLEX, especially since they just have to copy it and make adjustments where needed. Also, an americanized Absalon would have been a far better choice for their LCS program, but as we all know it's entirely a political decision, and there is no way the USN would be sailing with foreign ship designs.

I terms of pure savings on investment and perhaps physical maintenance I see the concept of STANFLEX and will admit that Denmark certainty did manage to have gotten is modules at the same time as their ships which the LCS has failed to. But I not sure all that flexibility is a good thing really vs a dedicated ship. Do they snap in with a new crew. How do you go from being an air defense Frigate to a Mine sweeper so fast. Does the crew get equal training with all Modules? So they are expert in every capacity or just one, and maybe they pick up some other stuff? Even the US military has only so many really full practice days and major naval 'games'. It seems to ship's crew should spend the majority of time when it has practicing its primary mission (air defense, ASW, etc). But since there has not a real high intensity Naval combat in so long who knows. I really don't like the ideal of Modules for mine clearing - it is a role that should have its own dedicated class and crew.

[Adar]

The system is called STANFLEX. It was developed in the 1980's as a solution to replacing several classes of minor ships with a single class of multirole ships. It is used on all 9 different classes in the RDN, including the large Absalon and Ivar Huitfeldt and the new arctic Knud Rasmussen class. The former two classes cost about $300M (excluding weapons, per ship), which is a lot cheaper than any comparable ships that I know of.

I'm pretty sure the USN could develop a very good derivative of the STANFLEX, especially since they just have to copy it and make adjustments where needed. Also, an americanized Absalon would have been a far better choice for their LCS program, but as we all know it's entirely a political decision, and there is no way the USN would be sailing with foreign ship designs.

Seems like a really good system that is successful thanks to the Danish Navy managing to avoid mission creep and other common issues. But according to a report I read they seem to prefer to only switch modules between active assignments. It is a very modular system but even if it is possible it doesn't seem like Denmark fancies the logistics and maintenance involved in switching systems in theatre like the LCS was supposed to.

[Condottiere 40K]

In the case of the LCS, in regard to the modular feature only, what should have happened is as each vessel reaches completion, the CNO decides which module will be emplaced based on what role the Naval Staff believe needs to be filled in the intermediate future, and left semi-permanently until there's an urgent requirement for LCS to fill another role.

Other than that, a general purpose frigate would have been the better solution.

[conon394]

@Pielstick

...which is kind of why the UK also needs to get a Trident replacement, but that's another discussion entirely.

So how about here I would like to see the US and UK would cooperation on this issue just for the cost saving but it seems doubtful even though we already share missiles. The time frame seems about correct for both countries and 16 ships across two budgets is likely less expensive for both nations

[Pielstick]

A joint US-UK programme would definitely be interesting. The UK sub-building industry works on an alternate programme - attack submarines, then ballistic missile submarines then back to attack submarines. Barrow is currently well into the Astute building programme and if something to replace the current "V-Boats" and their Trident system is to be built then we really need to be planning for it now.

There's quite a lot of hurdles to overcome first....

The current government took a chainsaw to defence spending in the 2010 defence review, and is committed to another review in 2015 - and it's also supposed to be when we make a final decision on a Trident replacement. Now the government says it wants to increase defence spending towards the end of the decade but to be honest I'm pretty sceptical. Most of the electorate, media and indeed politicians themselves don't really understand what the strategic deterrent force is supposed to do nor indeed the inherent value it has for the country. Saying you'll spend tens of billions on a new ballistic missile submarine flotilla and their associated weapons will get you no votes in the UK. Saying you'll divert those tens of billions to the NHS will get you loads of votes. Next up we have the uncertainty over Scotland. If there is a yes vote for independence in September the SNP have a stated policy of removing nuclear weapons from Scotland. That muddies the water quite a bit. Finally, given the history of the UK's nuclear force and the reasons we developed a strategic nuclear capability in the first place there are obviously questions to be asked about exactly how independent of the US we want that capability to be.

I'm also pretty sure inter-service politics and rivalry will also conspire to throw a spanner in the works. I don't see the RAF sitting idly by watching its combat strength get stripped to the bone whilst the RN gets a couple of highly prestigious new carriers, new attack subs and shiny new boomers.

[conon394]

A joint US-UK programme would definitely be interesting. The UK sub-building industry works on an alternate programme - attack submarines, then ballistic missile submarines then back to attack submarines. Barrow is currently well into the Astute building programme and if something to replace the current "V-Boats" and their Trident system is to be built then we really need to be planning for it now.

There's quite a lot of hurdles to overcome first....

The current government took a chainsaw to defence spending in the 2010 defence review, and is committed to another review in 2015 - and it's also supposed to be when we make a final decision on a Trident replacement. Now the government says it wants to increase defence spending towards the end of the decade but to be honest I'm pretty sceptical. Most of the electorate, media and indeed politicians themselves don't really understand what the strategic deterrent force is supposed to do nor indeed the inherent value it has for the country. Saying you'll spend tens of billions on a new ballistic missile submarine flotilla and their associated weapons will get you no votes in the UK. Saying you'll divert those tens of billions to the NHS will get you loads of votes. Next up we have the uncertainty over Scotland. If there is a yes vote for independence in September the SNP have a stated policy of removing nuclear weapons from Scotland. That muddies the water quite a bit. Finally, given the history of the UK's nuclear force and the reasons we developed a strategic nuclear capability in the first place there are obviously questions to be asked about exactly how independent of the US we want that capability to be.

I'm also pretty sure inter-service politics and rivalry will also conspire to throw a spanner in the works. I don't see the RAF sitting idly by watching its combat strength get stripped to the bone whilst the RN gets a couple of highly prestigious new carriers, new attack subs and shiny new boomers.

I hear you - I think would be a very good ideal but I appreciate its pie in the sky

Service rivalry is always a pain I don't know how you solve it. Compare the the Air Force here hates the A-10 for reasons unknown (well really they are because it something useful and is not a flashy uber fighter) but it will also fall on its sword before it allowed say a transfer to the army of the aircraft.

That muddies the water quite a bit. Finally, given the history of the UK's nuclear force and the reasons we developed a strategic nuclear capability in the first place there are obviously questions to be asked about exactly how independent of the US we want that capability to be.

That is really the rub - because the bigger problem is if the US can first swallow a big boy pill and admit its just getting too expensive to everything ourselves. If we did that I think it would be more easy for the UK to come around to the same point of view. If we both of want new boomers and both of our states mostly trust each other a more efficient larger joint boomer class leaves more money for the NHS or Obama care. It might might be well for the US to recall a little more how effective US/UK cooperation was back in WW2 (given the recent anniversary) on things like code breaking and the Manhattan project. But I doubt most Republicans here (or even Democrats as well unfortunately) can even tell you what an enigma machine was anyway and have no ideal what Bletchley Park was nor nothing at all except blank stare at the Frisch–Peierls memorandum unless they have time for an aid to run and Google it