The Future of Britain.

[Palnatoke]

While I am not very keen on discussing "the better plane" I don't think that the Case "Rafale" is worse than the "EF" Or "JSF" for that matter, has been made.
For a start Rafale is, on a number of dimensions, clearly the better plane vs. the EF for the french; F.ex. that it can operate from their carrier - hopefully CarrierS in the future - a cabability that the EF just doesn't have.
As britain is planning on having a real carrier - hopefully carrierS, in the future - it appears to me that the EF is not ideal for britain, given a premise that one wishes to reduce the number of different platforms in service (to decrease costs).

Honestly I think the British should look at american technologies and partnerships and avoid these euro centric initiatives. I think the Brits have more in common with the US in terms of military than with the euros..

Yeah, I am sure that american defense contractors would think that is a good idea.

 

[swerve]

I think the FREDA version can carry a mix of 48 aster 15&30 in it's launcher and will have an improved version of the herakles radar, which is a highly modern radar developed by a (or the) leader in the field (Thales). The herakles is a bit different than thales's APAR, Smart-L radar or the Sampson, in that those two systems has an active phazed array radar and a volumne search radar, while the herakles is "only" an active phazed array (I believe). Such things has it's pros and cons. As I understand it the herakles can operate the ASTER 30 to it's full potential, though, again as I read the text , it won't give the same long range surveillance as the APAR-Smart-l or Sampson, but the french also got carrier based AEW units so maybe that's not needed?

The FREDA is the "cost-effective" answer to the Horizon/Type45 failures (I consider them both expensive failures), as you might know Fr and It. stopped the Horizon project due to spiralling costs, leaving the navy short of targetted number of AAW units, and the FREDA is filling the gap.

FREDA will have 32 Sylver silos, hence a maximum of 32 Aster. AFAIK Herakles is a passive phased array (though a top-notch one, I think), not active.

I don't see FREDA as an answer to the failure of Horizon (& certainly not T45). Horizon looks pretty effective to me, but expensive. FREDA is a cheaper gap-filler to make up for budgetary constraints leaving France short of high-end AAW ships. The Italians are trying to fill the gap by increasing the AAW abilities of their standard FREMMs with a more capable AESA derivative of EMPAR, to make up for the lack of a VSR.

 

[swerve]

Honestly I think the British should look at american technologies and partnerships and avoid these euro centric initiatives. I think the Brits have more in common with the US in terms of military than with the euros..

Yeah, give up designing or making anything & just import it from the USA or maybe, if we do as we're told, be allowed to be subcontractors.

 

[the concerned]

I've said before that i think the best approach for england is a 10yr lease of superhornets and cancel the jsf and buy into the 6th generation fighter that is replacing the superhornet which is supposed to come aloong in 2025 just 5yrs after we are supposed to get the jsf anyway. we could use this plane to replace typhoon/tornado aswell

 

[RobWilliams]

FREDA will have 32 Sylver silos, hence a maximum of 32 Aster. AFAIK Herakles is a passive phased array (though a top-notch one, I think), not active.

I don't see FREDA as an answer to the failure of Horizon (& certainly not T45). Horizon looks pretty effective to me, but expensive. FREDA is a cheaper gap-filler to make up for budgetary constraints leaving France short of high-end AAW ships. The Italians are trying to fill the gap by increasing the AAW abilities of their standard FREMMs with a more capable AESA derivative of EMPAR, to make up for the lack of a VSR.

IMO those 2 facts are the most important factors for an AAW destroyer, missile capability and radar capability. As the T45 has more Asters + a better radar then it leads one to believe that for AAW the T45 will perform better, i for one am very glad we didn't participate in FREMM as we ultimately came out with a more capable (vastly more capable compared to T42 and cheaper to run) ship than we would have done with FREMM. There is a reason why T45 is a more expensive ship (excluding poor management decisions) after all.

 

[StobieWan]

I've said before that i think the best approach for england is a 10yr lease of superhornets and cancel the jsf and buy into the 6th generation fighter that is replacing the superhornet which is supposed to come aloong in 2025 just 5yrs after we are supposed to get the jsf anyway. we could use this plane to replace typhoon/tornado aswell

There are no superhornets to lease - no idea where this idea comes from other than wishful thinking but effectively it's a no go.

To be available to lease, the US government would effectively have to underwrite the deal so the manufacturer could build the aircraft, then arrange terms. Can't see that happening.

Why cancel JSF? We have a workshare in it, the platform is proceeding satisfactorily - what's the benefit? Why switch to an aircraft that's a twinkle in the eye of the designers, and which may take decades to provide full capability ? That's decades *beyond* the ISD of JSF.

Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

I've said before that i think the best approach for england is a 10yr lease of superhornets and cancel the jsf and buy into the 6th generation fighter that is replacing the superhornet which is supposed to come aloong in 2025 just 5yrs after we are supposed to get the jsf anyway. we could use this plane to replace typhoon/tornado aswell

Why should the UK (not England) lease Superhornets? Plus as said before where would they get them from? INothing more than a pipe-dream.

Of course, because investing right now in an aircraft design which would probably be far more expensive than the F-35C and NOT have 5th Gen aircaft on our carriers and instead leasing non-existant Hornets is the way to go, somehow I think not. IIRC isn't the F-35C for the USN going to replace the F-18? (Because if it is, why the hell would we NOT pick the F-35 and still operate F-18s which are not currently available)

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROHyfpeiom4&feature=player_embedded"]Skunk Works chief on next-gen fighter - YouTube[/nomedia]

When the time comes, we'll see if we ever build a 6th geneation figher - if we can afford it - i would not be suprised to see the optionally manned umm options to exist

If the Chief on Skunk Works has doubts on the affordability of a potential 6th gen then how on earth would the UK be able to afford it?

 

[Armoured Recce]

I actually think that the entire F-35 JSF program is rediculous.

It seems that the Americans got it in their heads that THEY "needed" to have this aricraft and it's dubious abilities and simply suckered the other nations into it with their "fantasy stories" about it's abilities, technology and especially it;s cost ( development and Per Unit).

Reality has shown that ALL the original "stories" have proven false. Canada has dumped enough money into the project that it's un reasonable to now back out ...as has every other contributing country.

from what I;ve read/heard, even the Americans aren;t "enthusiastic" about it.

From conception through R&D, everything about this Aircraft is based on American needs and wants...every one else is just be "shoe horned" into the program.

For Canada, ours will differ cause it;ll have a drag chute for icy runways...It;s already been shown that the Comms. system DOESN'T work in Canada's North...and that was the reason for it!????..so more money into developing a CANADIAN Comms Suite just so that comms across Canada can occur. Our needs and use of Fighter/fighter bombers has been minimal to say the least...they actually USED our CF18's in Libia...but no actual operational need for a $139 MILLION per unit plane exists....our 18's are old...yep.....do they need replacing YEP.....could we have bought another GOOD plane that meets our needs and more of them for a fraction of the costs so far...Hell YES!.......

The UK is likewise being suckered into this "shoe horn" mentality.to much money, to many unfounded promises and little actual capabilities shown...just alot of future" promises".....Everyone will need to seriously change our entire Airforce structures, tactics, support everything for this "one plane wonder package"...

yep so great that even the USA is reducing it;s perspective orders.......sad, very sad.....

The UK has a stelar and long lived Aero Industry...they should have spent the money AT HOME, built an aircraft for UK needs......simple isn;t it?........

 

[StobieWan]

The UK has a stelar and long lived Aero Industry...they should have spent the money AT HOME, built an aircraft for UK needs......simple isn;t it?........

We've not built a supersonic fighter on a national level since the original lightning - there's no way we could have rattled off a fifth generation aircraft with the current infrastructure. We had design lead on Typhoon and that was twenty years ago.

F35 works fine and if you're in doubt, pop over to the F35 thread and read that through.

 

[Palnatoke]

FREDA will have 32 Sylver silos, hence a maximum of 32 Aster. AFAIK Herakles is a passive phased array (though a top-notch one, I think), not active.

I don't see FREDA as an answer to the failure of Horizon (& certainly not T45). Horizon looks pretty effective to me, but expensive. FREDA is a cheaper gap-filler to make up for budgetary constraints leaving France short of high-end AAW ships. The Italians are trying to fill the gap by increasing the AAW abilities of their standard FREMMs with a more capable AESA derivative of EMPAR, to make up for the lack of a VSR.

Thanks for the missile count and I agree that it looks like Herakles is a passive phazed array. It is also a top radar by one of the leaders in the field, and nothing suggests that it's a bad or inferior radar. It's obvious that a ship needs the radar that can surport and match it's cababilities and intended use, and given that the french navy, unlike the italien and english got carrier borne AEW, maybe the long range surveliance aspect is not as important for the intended use. As to the ability of the radar to detect and react on/to realworld threaths (like low altitude stealthy objects), we don't know how it meassures up against other radars. But aparently the french are content with the performance, else they would probably have got a better radar. F.ex. Signaal (now thales) also offers the APAR-Smart-L radars, which is in use by a number of navies.
And anyway a 3D air range of 250km and an ability to track more than 400 targets, sounds as "enough".

As I read the specs of the FREDA, this ship can combat air threats to the full potential of the ASTER15/30 missile, which incidentially is (exactly) the same missile as the horizon and T45 is equipped with and thus limited by. That FREDA carries 32 ASTERS doesn't seem so low, compared to T45's 48 missiles (according to wiki). If the marginal cost (because the FREEM sisters are being builded regardless) is good, then I have a very hard time seeing why this shouldn't be a very good ship for the french navy.

 

[Palnatoke]

IMO those 2 facts are the most important factors for an AAW destroyer, missile capability and radar capability. As the T45 has more Asters + a better radar then it leads one to believe that for AAW the T45 will perform better, i for one am very glad we didn't participate in FREMM as we ultimately came out with a more capable (vastly more capable compared to T42 and cheaper to run) ship than we would have done with FREMM. There is a reason why T45 is a more expensive ship (excluding poor management decisions) after all.

The frustating part is that you don't even mention the money... more than 1 billion pound per ship in "then money"....! a cracy amount of money, and well more than double that of a FREMM (unit programme price), not knowing the price a FREDA, but since one can view those as "extras" it's the marginal price that's interesting. (The cost of development of the main ship has been paid (FREMM) and the development cost of the weapons has also been paid (Horizon)

 

[StobieWan]

IMO those 2 facts are the most important factors for an AAW destroyer, missile capability and radar capability. As the T45 has more Asters + a better radar then it leads one to believe that for AAW the T45 will perform better, i for one am very glad we didn't participate in FREMM as we ultimately came out with a more capable (vastly more capable compared to T42 and cheaper to run) ship than we would have done with FREMM. There is a reason why T45 is a more expensive ship (excluding poor management decisions) after all.

Mmm...no sense in comparing FREMM with a Daring - the T45 was our home built alternative to the Horizon frigates once we'd withdrawn from the Horizon program. FREMM is a near equivalent to the forthcoming T26. You need to look at the Horizon vs T45 costs/specification. The prime mover for us getting out of Horizon was workshare - the French and Italians were aiming for workshare based around building I think 12 and 6 respectively, while committing to rather less of a build ending up with I think 3 and 1 respectively.

Even if we'd stayed in the Horizon program we'd still have had the same radar fitout as we'd spent quite a bit of time insisting and making it possible to include SAMPSON.

Daring stacked out at £750m per copy, you can't compare that to a FREMM as the ship is intended to be a cheap, multipurpose frigate with a far less capable sensor set.

Ian

 

[Palnatoke]

Why cancel JSF? We have a workshare in it, the platform is proceeding satisfactorily - what's the benefit? Why switch to an aircraft that's a twinkle in the eye of the designers, and which may take decades to provide full capability ? That's decades *beyond* the ISD of JSF.
Ian

I agree that there's no turning back now.

My point is more "in retrospect". In retrospect britsh planners should, in my mind, have clearly seen not only the need for a landbased fighter, but also the need for a new carrier fleet by, say, 2010-2020. And envisioned the need for a modern multirole fighter cabable of fullfilling those roles with in budget limits.

 

[Palnatoke]

Daring stacked out at £750m per copy, you can't compare that to a FREMM as the ship is intended to be a cheap, multipurpose frigate with a far less capable sensor set.

Ian

The price was £1.2bn per ship in "then" money.

The FREMM is a very capable highly modern multirole warship with a modern and very capable radar, it's priced at less than half of that of the T45.
The FREDA version is intended to bring many of the same capabilities that the T45 brings to the table - that's obvious from reading the spec lists.

 

[Palnatoke]

FREDA will have 32 Sylver silos, hence a maximum of 32 Aster. AFAIK Herakles is a passive phased array (though a top-notch one, I think), not active.

I don't see FREDA as an answer to the failure of Horizon (& certainly not T45). Horizon looks pretty effective to me, but expensive. FREDA is a cheaper gap-filler to make up for budgetary constraints leaving France short of high-end AAW ships. The Italians are trying to fill the gap by increasing the AAW abilities of their standard FREMMs with a more capable AESA derivative of EMPAR, to make up for the lack of a VSR.

Btw, upon reading on it, apparently Herakles is some sort of cross breed between an active and passive array.

The herakles is, as far as I can see, developed by Thales Nl. (the former Signaal of Nl) privately and is, according to themselves, their most modern product. That same company also has the widely sold APAR radar, so it's not because they can't make a geniune active array at Thales Nl.

 

[RobWilliams]

The frustating part is that you don't even mention the money... more than 1 billion pound per ship in "then money"....! a cracy amount of money, and well more than double that of a FREMM (unit programme price), not knowing the price a FREDA, but since one can view those as "extras" it's the marginal price that's interesting. (The cost of development of the main ship has been paid (FREMM) and the development cost of the weapons has also been paid (Horizon)

I did mention money when i said "There is a reason why T45 is a more expensive ship (excluding poor management decisions) after all", if i didn't make it clear then i apologise.

What i'm trying to get across is whilst FREMM for what it is, is a perfectly capable platform BUT as a dedicated AAW destroyer the T45 does come out on top, whilst the radar on FREDA has a range of around 250km (i think?) SAMPSON has one of 400km which I believe would make the T45 more effective with dealing with airbourne threats than FREDA. True, France has carrier bourne AEW however i'm of the opinion that for AAW a destroyer should be able to act relatively independantly and as such have the best sensors mounted as possible and because of this can currently track more inbound targets from a longer range and destroy the threat faster than FREDA can currently do.

Plus, looking at Wiki FREMM is generally a 2000 ton smaller ship with about 1000nm less range than the T45. The T45 program recieved flak from the media about "only" carrying 48 Asters compared to the capacity of the Burke class so imagine how a 32-capacity ship would have done.

The issue is essentially FREMM is a multipurpose frigate, and while it may be a very capable AAW system it still isn't going to be as effective as a dedicated AAW destroyer, FREMM is more along the lines of the T26 in its philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, FREDA is a decent capability ship but compared to the T45 it isn't as effective. Plus the kick-backs from BAE building them in British shipyards is relevant.

 

[the concerned]

Hasn't boeing already started work on a 6th generation fighter to replace the f-18e. there have been a few artists impressions in airforces monthly.

 

[Palnatoke]

I did mention money when i said "There is a reason why T45 is a more expensive ship (excluding poor management decisions) after all", if i didn't make it clear then i apologise.

What i'm trying to get across is whilst FREMM for what it is, is a perfectly capable platform BUT as a dedicated AAW destroyer the T45 does come out on top, whilst the radar on FREDA has a range of around 250km (i think?) SAMPSON has one of 400km which I believe would make the T45 more effective with dealing with airbourne threats than FREDA. True, France has carrier bourne AEW however i'm of the opinion that for AAW a destroyer should be able to act relatively independantly and as such have the best sensors mounted as possible and because of this can currently track more inbound targets from a longer range and destroy the threat faster than FREDA can currently do.

Plus, looking at Wiki FREMM is generally a 2000 ton smaller ship with about 1000nm less range than the T45. The T45 program recieved flak from the media about "only" carrying 48 Asters compared to the capacity of the Burke class so imagine how a 32-capacity ship would have done.

The issue is essentially FREMM is a multipurpose frigate, and while it may be a very capable AAW system it still isn't going to be as effective as a dedicated AAW destroyer, FREMM is more along the lines of the T26 in its philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, FREDA is a decent capability ship but compared to the T45 it isn't as effective. Plus the kick-backs from BAE building them in British shipyards is relevant.

Sorry, you did mention the money.

Look, the ASTER30 has a range of about 120km, whether your radar is good out to 250 (hearakles) or 400 (sampson) won't make much of a difference in combatting an air threath using ASTER. The range difference is most likely due to the VSR (a version of the Smart-L from Thales Nl, as far as I know) part of the Sampson system, that Herakles lacks. But BAe have themselves called the VSR radar "superfluous" and there for "historical reasons".
How the Herakles stack up to the APAR and Sampson APAR/AESA radar at practical ranges, us ordinarry people just don't know, As far as I can see the power of the herakles is 50Kw while Sampson is a 25Kw radar. Thales claims in their sales speech, that the special construction of the radar, allows it to be an ideal compromise between the complex active phazed array and the simpler passive phazed array. The point likely being that the Herakles is a mulitbeam radar (like APAR) and can thus operate in different modes simultaniously (attack, search etc).
Anyway the french defense selected it (no strings, the herakles was a private project (actually from a dutch outfit, as far as I know) and singapore was the first customer).


" AAW system it still isn't going to be as effective as a dedicated AAW "

No, but what's the operational difference? I am putting to you that a TYPE45 is not twice as effective as the future FREDA - far from. But the Type45 is twice as expensive. And that's the problem with the T45, bad value for money.

 

[RobWilliams]

Sorry, you did mention the money.

Look, the ASTER30 has a range of about 120km, whether your radar is good out to 250 (hearakles) or 400 (sampson) won't make much of a difference in combatting an air threath using ASTER. The range difference is most likely due to the VSR (a version of the Smart-L from Thales Nl, as far as I know) part of the Sampson system, that Herakles lacks. But BAe have themselves called the VSR radar "superfluous" and there for "historical reasons".

Whilst that is completely true, the longer range radar would give the T45 a better 'situational awareness' in theatre meaning it could act as an early warning for the rest of the fleet as AFAIK these will be the only ships to operate SAMPSON and i can't remember if the UK will be getting an AEW system (someone correct me please?). Then there's the issue of the height of the T45, its radar is placed higher than on FREDA meaning it has a better ability to track sea-skimming missiles.

How the Herakles stack up to the APAR and Sampson APAR/AESA radar at practical ranges, us ordinarry people just don't know, As far as I can see the power of the herakles is 50Kw while Sampson is a 25Kw radar. Thales claims in their sales speech, that the special construction of the radar, allows it to be an ideal compromise between the complex active phazed array and the simpler passive phazed array. The point likely being that the Herakles is a mulitbeam radar (like APAR) and can thus operate in different modes simultaniously (attack, search etc).
Anyway the french defense selected it (no strings, the herakles was a private project (actually from a dutch outfit, as far as I know) and singapore was the first customer).

I wouldn't listen too much about what the sales people claim to be possible, they're naturally going to want to back up all their decisions but i'll take some documented material over the reps SAMPSON can also operate in simultaneous modes but you probably knew that anyway. IIRC the Italian AAW variant has EMPAR mounted higher than the MN equivalent which gives it more time to deal with airbourne threats, so surely the MN had an option for a higher mounted radar too? Plus has the MN invested in a CEC suite for FREDA?

The thing is, without a VSR is seems FREDA

" AAW system it still isn't going to be as effective as a dedicated AAW "

No, but what's the operational difference? I am putting to you that a TYPE45 is not twice as effective as the future FREDA - far from. But the Type45 is twice as expensive. And that's the problem with the T45, bad value for money.

Nowhere did I say the T45 is good value for money nor did I put that the T45 is 2x capable. What I have said is its a more capable ship (which is fair to say) and offers an extreme improvement over our previous ship the T42 and provides work the British shipbuilding and defence industry (and the kick backs resulted from that).

Spiralling costs for the T45 resulted from poor management, not any design flaws or whatever.

EDIT: One of the things i really like about FREDA is they come with 8 Exocet MM40 block 3 missiles compared to the T45's "fitted for, but not with" Harpoon.

 

[Palnatoke]

@Rob

Then there's the issue of the height of the T45, its radar is placed higher than on FREDA meaning it has a better ability to track sea-skimming missiles.

In theory, yes. In practize, depends on the radar can detect the missile that far out. I have my reservations, and many navies look like they aren't soo keen with getting the radar elevated as much as possible. I take that as an indication that the radars any way can't detect the LO surface skimmer that far out - but that's a guess.

SAMPSON can also operate in simultaneous modes

Yes, going free from memory on antenna theory, the Sampson and Thales's APAR radars (the two top european active phazed array radars, which is the same as an active electronical scanned array) works by emmitting EM-radiation from a vast array of small transmitters. These are independent, frequvency agile and can be controlled individually. Via interference etc. you, by controlling the individual emissions of the antenna elements, can create really complex emission fields, like steering (one or more) narrow "beams" etc.
A passive array has a central EM source, so there is less control over the emission field (the antenna elements are not individually frequvency agile). Still you can steer it etc. but not to the same degree of freedom as an active one. It's a more simple design, but still highly usefull.
Now, as I understand it the herakles is of the passive type, but they have made a trick (I didn't understand the short explaniation, I found) that anyway allow the radar to work somewhat as an active one.

Spiralling costs for the T45 resulted from poor management, not any design flaws or whatever.

I think that's debatable, or rather it depends on what one means by design and mangement. Many technical aspects of the T45 seems to have been quite ambitious, new stuff and technology that the manufacturer hadn't much experience with etc. and seems to have injected risc into the project.
Compare that to projects where there have been an emphazies on reducing risc by choosing well known and tested solutions and always hiring in experts to take care of problems that the yard didn't have strong expertize in.