Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: VT, BAE to finalise JV after MoD gives go-ahead to Navy Carriers
DragonReborn    5/20/2008 2:45:52 PM
So the Carriers still looking pretty certain then? But will we have much to fly off them once their built?? h!!p://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/05/20/afx5029874.html ONDON (Thomson Financial) - VT Group Plc. and BAE Systems Plc. (other-otc: BAESF.PK - news - people ) will launch their long-awaited joint venture to combine their shipbuilding and naval support operations after the UK Ministry of Defence approved a project to build two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, the companies said Tuesday. The two groups said they would finalise arrangements for the venture, which has been on hold while they awaited the MoD's go-ahead for the carriers. There had been speculation that the 4 billion pound CVF carrier project, first announced last July, might fall victim to defence spending cuts. BAE and VT said they expect to sign the JV transaction documentation shortly. The agreement will then be subject to VT shareholder approval. BAE chief executive Mike Turner said: 'This is an important milestone in the development of the CVF programme and plays a major part in the long term sustainability of the UK naval sector and the transformation of our business. 'The programme will provide a strong order book and forward workload over the coming years and, most importantly will provide our armed forces with significantly enhanced capability.' In a separate statement, the MoD said it had completed all the necessary financial, commercial, and management arrangements for the project, adding that the super aircraft carriers will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed in the United Kingdom. The new VT-BAE joint venture will be a key member of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance which will construct and assemble the new carriers at shipyards in Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow and Rosyth, said the MoD. Other members of the alliance include Bab International Group Plc. and Thales (other-otc: THLEF.PK - news - people ) UK. Bab said the contract will be worth some 600 million pounds to Bab through the duration of the programme to 2015. Thales said the contract will be worth well over 500 million euros to the group. 'We are delighted with the decision which has been taken today. We have been working on the programme since the very beginning and the design which has been processed so far is a Thales design,' said CEO Denis Ranque. VT is also awaiting a government decision on a 6 billion pound military flight training contract and last week said it and Lockheed Martin (nyse: LMT - news - people ) were expecting to reach a financial close on the project before the end of May.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
Herald12345    missiles and onions.   6/19/2008 4:58:57 AM

I'd forgotten about the utility of VSHORAD against UAV's - I retract my comments about them. I still have my doubts about them as a useful naval SAM though.

Even a Stinger has its place aboard a ship. Not everything that flies over you is a supersonic sea-skimmer. 

Naval MEADS may indeed work well as a naval system but again I guess the problem here is political - the core design work is being done in the US, Germany and Italy. I can't see that being acceptable to MBDA in the UK.

Its a suggestion for a rocket you can stuff into a Sylver launcher that gives you a general purpose rocket. The reason I suggested it is that if you use a slue and elevate cell launcher for your point defense missile, the PAC 3 gives you an ATG missile that you can track via missile against the very threats that the RN says it wants to defend. 

The more I think about it, the more I think we should keep naval SAMs as simple as possible. Go for tried and tested systems so: SM3, ESSM, and SeaRam and you've probably got a balanced anti-air and anti-missile defence of the best weapons available at a reasonable cost.

And you understand the concept of the onion. It consists of layers or zones where you design the defense to meet the threat. The mantra is detect, acquire, track, engage. The further away you can DATE the object, the better for you, and the worse for it. Long range missiles [STANDARDS] with OTH targeting support are the outer limit of your naval SAM onion. Here is where you practrice EMCOM; until you are certain the enemy has your track solved. These are to backup your naval CAP and rely on your AWACs and picket ships for targeting and guidance.  The middle belt is where you begin your local defensive countermeasures, as well as start using ship passive detectors and close in airborne AEW support.  The SAM here is where the ASTER 30 and ASTER 15 actually functions.  These, either of them,  are local defense missiles and not very good ones. This is also where naval MEADS  fits though naval MEADS does have some tactical ABM capability as well . This is also where ESSM fits in the onion.  For the final layer of the onion you have active countermeasures [local foxing and spoofing] and your last ditch rocket and gun defense. This is where SeaRAM, Mistral, Goalkeeper, and naval Starstreak would function. It is in this last zone where countermeasures is MORE IMPORTANT than the rockets you use. The ECM/ECCM battle, if you win it here, allows you the time and the  chance to DODGE  behind a storm of electronic confusion you've created. Decoy the enemy missiles off vector is better than shredding the last enemy inbound, only to have the wreckage you created slam into your ship , kill crew, and start topside fires, after wrecking your radars.

The Darings are very good at the ECM/ECCM battle-in all three zones-maybe the best in the world:  that is their MAIN saving grace as AAW bodyguard ships at the moment.

 Herald  




 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur    JDRADM   6/19/2008 8:29:31 AM
I've just had a look at the pdf on JDRADM & on a google search. Few details as yet other than what it's supposed to do.
 
I can see the logic of having one "all-singing all-dancing" missile, but it's a hell of an ask. It'll be interesting to see whether it works out.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/19/2008 3:01:02 PM

I've just had a look at the pdf on JDRADM & on a google search. Few details as yet other than what it's supposed to do.

 

I can see the logic of having one "all-singing all-dancing" missile, but it's a hell of an ask. It'll be interesting to see whether it works out.

I am not sure about that.  I agree more with you. The performance requirements of an ant-radiation missile are much simpler than those for an air to air missile. We may be trying to build too much in the overall missile and find it is too much for one role and not enough for the other.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       6/20/2008 1:34:21 PM




I've just had a look at the pdf on JDRADM & on a google search. Few details as yet other than what it's supposed to do.



 



I can see the logic of having one "all-singing all-dancing" missile, but it's a hell of an ask. It'll be interesting to see whether it works out.



I am not sure about that. 
Herald

I was thinking in terms of flexibility. Instead of an aircraft only carrying an AAW warload (i.e an AMRAAM ASRAAM combination), it can suddenly change half way through the mission and attack ground targets if the missiles are flxible enough to enable that to happen.
Now I've written that I'm not sure whether it is possible in terms of pilot workload etc!  

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       6/21/2008 10:33:42 AM
\

I was thinking in terms of flexibility. Instead of an aircraft only carrying an AAW warload (i.e an AMRAAM ASRAAM combination), it can suddenly change half way through the mission and attack ground targets if the missiles are flxible enough to enable that to happen.

Now I've written that I'm not sure whether it is possible in terms of pilot workload etc!  



If you want flexible, how about a duplex/multiplex munition?  Stack say two AIM-9 on end, equip the first with a BVR head, you have one long range or two short range missiles; the first acts as a booster, then the second pushes off and reaches out.  The first stage might retain enough KE to achieve an opportunistic short range kill with its existing WVR head if both targets exist. 
 
And on ground attack this would provide a dispersed or area attack.  Or, one goes AGM, one goes AAM or perhaps AGM+AMM during DEAD/SEAD to counter a launch from a SAM site you are targeting.
 
The question is, how much of a Mixmaster can you make a missile guidance system?  If it costs another $1M in design and $0.10 per unit for each changed lithograph, or put it another way, if under Moore's Law it doubles in the number of seeker modes at same unit weight every year or two, then make it a Common part.  Why not have GPS and laser and TFR too?
 
If Moores Law doesn't apply then it chances to become a boondoggle.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/21/2008 11:07:20 AM

\


I was thinking in terms of flexibility. Instead of an aircraft only carrying an AAW warload (i.e an AMRAAM ASRAAM combination), it can suddenly change half way through the mission and attack ground targets if the missiles are flxible enough to enable that to happen.




Now I've written that I'm not sure whether it is possible in terms of pilot workload etc!  









If you want flexible, how about a duplex/multiplex munition?  Stack say two AIM-9 on end, equip the first with a BVR head, you have one long range or two short range missiles; the first acts as a booster, then the second pushes off and reaches out.  The first stage might retain enough KE to achieve an opportunistic short range kill with its existing WVR head if both targets exist. 

 

And on ground attack this would provide a dispersed or area attack.  Or, one goes AGM, one goes AAM or perhaps AGM+AMM during DEAD/SEAD to counter a launch from a SAM site you are targeting.


 

The question is, how much of a Mixmaster can you make a missile guidance system?  If it costs another $1M in design and $0.10 per unit for each changed lithograph, or put it another way, if under Moore's Law it doubles in the number of seeker modes at same unit weight every year or two, then make it a Common part.  Why not have GPS and laser and TFR too?


 

If Moores Law doesn't apply then it chances to become a boondoggle.


Engineers K.I.S.S.
 
Scotty's rule: "The more you over think the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the pipes." 
 
Herald's corallory
 
"The quickest way to drown yourself in a backflow of !@#$ is to make too many pipe bends in what should be a straight  plumbed run!"
 
Herald
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/21/2008 11:18:19 AM
Still missing the point, the important question (for both CVF and T45) is "What capabilites is UK seeking".  For example, where has UK ever said they want an ABM capability at sea (or anywhere else for that matter)?  Wittering on about Aster being incapable of dealing with ABM is totally irrelevant.  Looking ahead cold launch VMs clearly have possibilities for self defence on CVF, if that were needed, possibly replacing Phalanx. 
 
I keep pointing it out, but I'll repeat it again for the slow learners, FI was a unique situation of no relevance to anything else (except that carriers can be useful).
 
I also said using AEW depended on forward basing and C2 arrangements, I realise this is a statement of the bleeding obvious but there are slow learners on the list.  A related matter is where UK expects to operate, ie Med and SW Asia, the former is quite convenient, Gib at one end, Cyprus at the other.  Not to mention various NATO nations in between.  The P Gulf is a bit more difficult but UK has a good friend at the East end.
 
Of course a related issue is the extent to which RN's cooperative engagement capability is developing.  Ie the emerging extent of a high capacity data network in a TG or whatever that allows target data to be distributed.  Self evidently this may have the potential to provide increased target handling capability.
 
My favourite read, desider, had this about the various responsibilites for CVF design:  Thales UK Chief Executive Alex Dorrian said: ?Within the alliance of MoD and industry, Thales UK takes responsibility for system design of the platform, power and propulsion.  Thales UK will also lead the aviation team responsible for ensuring the integrity of the ship with respect to aviation operations.  ?Working with BAE Systems, Thales UK will be a full participant in delivering the CVF?s mission systems, and is committed to playing a full role in supporting the carriers in service.?  Bath-based naval design and engineering company BMT Defence Services, a subsidiary of BMT Group, which produced the original, innovative platform design, was delighted with the MoD?s carrier announcement. ?The success of our initial platform design highlights our skills, which encompass the maritime sector sovereign capabilities required to design and support complex warships, auxiliaries and submarines from concept to point of build,? said managing director Roger Cooper.
 
Note the last sentence.  This seems to be saying that the basic CVF design is by BMT.  I know this might be a revelation to some but they too are probably capable of drawing pretty pictures of shuffling aircraft around a flight deck and the hangar decks.
 
Finally, the Sov offensive in Manchuria lasted 10 days, 1.6M Sov forces with 1200 irrecoverable cas per day.  For comparison Op BAGRATION, the major Sov offensive in 1944 that destroyed Army Group Centre:  68 days, 2.4M, 11,299 irrecoverable cas per day.  As I said the Manchurian op was outstanding for its low cas.  It seems BAGRATION cas were about the same as the counteroffensive phase at Kursk and slightly more than the defensive phase there.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stick to artillery and leve matters naval alone.   6/21/2008 11:23:43 AM
Twittering about stuff about which you know nothing is pointless; Neut. CREF above.
 
I don't comment about artillery outside of rockets much, you'll notice.

There is a REASON for that.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    JV agreement signed   6/21/2008 12:48:29 PM

This seems to have passed me by - just the manufacturing contract to be signed now.

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1085111636.html
 
A thought occurred to me, given the recent discussions about greater european co-operation, is it too late to go for the catobar option so that the RN can cross-deck with the MN?
 
Would solve our aew problem as well.
 
Essex
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       6/21/2008 2:44:31 PM
Maybe you could give me some hints on soldering copper tubing, Herald, I have had some to do lately.  More on that in mail if you like.  As for the seeker, yes, the tandem missile was rather fanciful, but I bet there's a lot of common circuitry in different guidance and control packages and without adding too much weight or cost I wonder if trimode or multimode seekers aren't a practical future.  I have talked about how smart munitions must come down and one way would be to have a common architecture so you can breadboard assemblies and develop rapidly with, not COTS, MOTS.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics