UK Military News Thread

[sandyj]

Ground Runs Commence tor TP-400 Engine Flying Test Bed

(Source: Airbus Military; issued June 13, 2008)

The second week of June saw the first ground run of the A400M’s TP-400 engine fitted to the Marshall-owned C-130 Hercules Flying Test Bed (FTB). After overcoming some technical difficulties due to unforeseen integration problems, the 10,000 shaft horsepower engine was run up for the first time in Cambridge, UK on June 10th.

Although not part of the contractual obligations, the FTB programme has been devised by Airbus Military as a risk mitigation exercise within the overall engine development programme.

Marshall Aerospace, with whom the contract for the FTB programme has been placed, has made extensive modifications to their C-130 in order to accommodate what is the most powerful turboprop engine yet produced in western Europe.

These modifications concern both the airframe and systems and include considerable revision of the Aircraft Operating Instructions and the Aircrew Manuals to encompass the procedures for operating the aircraft with two different engine and propeller types simultaneously.

The ground runs will enable engineers to test and measure engine start, nacelle ventilation, intake distortion, and engine noise and vibration levels. The results will also serve to clear the new Ratier-Figeac / Hamilton Sundstrand propeller for flight

[sandyj]

New Lessons From The British Royal Navy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Martin Sieff
Washington (UPI) Jun 16, 2008
Britain's Royal Navy is seeking to revive its fabled anti-submarine warfare, or ASW, operating skills, and the area it chose to practice them this spring was astride the world's crucial oil supply routes in the Indian Ocean.

Jane's, the respected British weapons and armed forces publishing house and news service, reported June 5 that from April 16 through April 20, the Royal Navy carried out an ambitious five-day anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Indian Ocean. Jane's said the purpose of the exercise was to test the operational capabilities of two state-of-the-art British ASW systems, the Merlin HM-1 ship-launched helicopter and the Thales Underwater Systems new Sonar 2087 low-frequency active/passive sonar.
The exercise was of special significance in many respects.
First, the very codename Phoenix signifies an effort by the British navy to revive the fabled ASW skills it was famous for through both world wars and through the four and a half decades of the Cold War.
For the Royal Navy, as for the U.S. Navy, anti-submarine warfare capabilities dropped off the map following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the collapse of communism and the mothballing or rusting of most of the old Soviet navy.
However, in recent years Western naval planners, as we have noted in these pages, have belatedly woken up to the new threat posed by the global proliferation of cheap, easily built diesel-electric submarines that are so small and quiet that they are virtually undetectable by the ASW technologies of the last decade of the Cold War, which were designed to detect much larger, nuclear-powered Soviet subs.
Second, the British exercises, as the Jane's report clearly indicated, were meant to highlight the capabilities of the new Merlin helicopter and the Thales active/passive sonar system.
Third, the choice of the Indian Ocean for the exercises suggests the British manufacturers hope to sell the Merlin and Thales to navies in the region that need to upgrade their anti-submarine warfare capabilities: The obvious targets for such a sales strategy would be the Australian, Japanese and Indian navies.
The U.S. Navy may be a potential sales target for the Thales sonar, but as we noted Friday in this series, the U.S. Navy already has invested heavily in its own next-generation ASW sea-launched combat helicopters.
The choice of the Indian Ocean is also fascinating because it signifies a continuing British focus on power projection around the world rather than on simply focusing on defending Britain's own sea-lanes, especially to North America, in the event of some hypothetical future war.
It is probably true that British naval planners see the possibility of some future hostilities in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf region that could threaten global oil routes as far more likely than a full-scale war in the Northern Hemisphere that could put Britain's own sea-lanes and maritime commerce routes directly at risk. This certainly fits the pattern of the past 17 years. British armed forces, including major naval units, participated alongside the U.S. Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force in both the 1991 and the 2003 Gulf wars against Iraq. Any future hostilities with Iran would also involve a threat from Iran's Russian-supplied kilo-class diesel submarines. They would be the prime target for and threat to British naval units that might operate alongside the U.S. Navy in the event of such hostilities. Therefore, carrying out the ASW exercises in the Indian Ocean would make a great deal of strategic sense if such considerations are factored in.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/New_..._Navy_999.html

[sandyj]

Babcock Marine to Refit Royal Navy Frigate

£9m Makeover for HMS Monmouth

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued June 17, 2008)

The Type 23 frigate HMS Monmouth is to get a boost to her top speed in a £9 million overhaul to be carried out by Babcock Marine at Rosyth in Scotland, Defence Minister, Baroness Taylor, announced today.

As well as essential routine maintenance work, the refit will furnish the ship with important new capabilities including an upgraded Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system, and modifications to the gearbox systems to enable the ship to operate at increased power and speed. The crew will benefit from an overhaul of the living quarters and an updated air conditioning system, essential for operating in hotter climates. Enhanced safety mechanisms will also be installed including an updated fire detection system.

Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Baroness Taylor, said:

"This work is vital for keeping our existing fleet in top condition, enhancing it with new technology which is essential to efficiently provide the Royal Navy with the capability it requires. This is an excellent contract for Babcock Marine and will help secure many jobs in Rosyth."

The MoD Surface Combatants team leader, Commodore Graham Peach, said: "Part of the refit work will include modifications to the ship's gearboxes so they can handle the maximum power output of the gas turbines. We think this will also give Monmouth a couple of knots extra speed. Overall, the work will equip Monmouth for many years more service."

Starting in June, the team in Rosyth is expected to spend eight months getting HMS Monmouth fighting fit.

The Type 23 frigates form the backbone of the Royal Navy's anti-submarine frigate force. They were the RN's first 'stealthy' ships, being equipped with a Combined Diesel Electric and Gas propulsion system that allows them to cruise slowly and quietly while hunting submarines.


BACKGROUND NOTES:
1. HMS Monmouth's refit is the sixth in the current batch to be placed under the Surface Ship Support (SSS) Project. This brings MoD and industry together to allocate work packages, and deliver affordable and sustainable complex warship support. This approach represents best value for Defence while at the same time helping to ensure sustainability and longevity for industry.

2. Dimensions: 133m x 16.1m x 5m
Weight: 4,900 tonnes
Speed: 28 knots
Complement: 185
In Service Date: 1993

3. In March HMS MONMOUTH sailed into Cardiff to receive visits from Monmouthshire dignitaries and organisations, reaffirming the ship's links with her affiliated borough. She is the seventh ship to bear the name.

[lcortez]

mContracts signed for the two new aircraft carriers,with an expected launch date of 2014-2016,acc to BBC.
Video and Thales animation,can be found on the bbc news website at, www.bbcnews.com . Click on world in the left hand side links and the video appears on the front page.

[Mr T]

You beat me to it! Good news, indeed. I just hope that the frigate-replacement project is brought forward - otherwise the Royal Navy will have to reduce its non-critical missions such as helping out with anti-drug operations.

Official news here.

The MOD today signed contracts with industry to build the two future aircraft carriers. The contracts, worth in the region of £3 billion, were signed with the newly-formed UK maritime Joint Venture, BVT Surface Fleet, and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance onboard HMS Ark Royal, one of the Royal Navy’s existing aircraft carriers and currently the Fleet Flagship.

Contracts authorised today encompass work worth:

• £1,325M for the construction of giant sections of both ships by BVT Surface Fleet at Govan on the Clyde and Portsmouth;
• £300M for the construction of giant sections of the ships at the BAE Systems yard at Barrow-in-Furness;
• £675M for the bow section and final assembly and completion of the ships by Babcock Marine, with assembly taking place at Rosyth;
• £425M for design and engineering for Thales UK; and
• £275M for design and supply of Mission Systems for BAE Systems Integrated Systems Technologies (Insyte).

[lcortez]

Yes,excellent news.
However,bit concerned about the status of the Type 45,have been rreading that their numbers will be cut back to 6,with no Anti Ship missile's,is this true?
Would that not leave them a little vulnerable?

[Pointblank]

Originally Posted by lcortez

Yes,excellent news.
However,bit concerned about the status of the Type 45,have been rreading that their numbers will be cut back to 6,with no Anti Ship missile's,is this true?
Would that not leave them a little vulnerable?

The lack of a anti-ship missile is not a concern, when the ships are meant to be used in task groups with ships that do have anti-ship missiles. Many air-defence warships do not carry anti-ship missiles, such as the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers.

[Obi Wan Russell]

If the T45s are doing their intended job ie escorting a carrier, then the carrier's aircraft will be able to deal with any surface threat at far greater range than any weapon you could fit to the Darings. It would only be a problem if they were operating independently from any task group, which shows the importance of forward planning.

[SampanViking]

Forgive me if I do not share your enthusiasm for the Carriers. At £2 Billion a piece, they cost the same as the US's Nimitz Carriers, but lets be honest, they ain't no Nimitz, as both Queenie and Prinny are going to be Diesel powered and lack therefore sufficient power to operate Steam Catapults (with instead a vague commitment to install electric ones at a later date if such things are ever invented)

We do however see a Defence Secretary awarding a contract to his own constituency, which is so blatant I am astounded.

So we have money for these new; toys recession and all, but nothing to replace the Nimrods (despite the Oxford Coroner calling for the fleet to be grounded) and other now clapped out gear that UK forces are expected to continue to use to undertake their current commitments. In other words nothing that we really need but money instead for prestige project for a future theoretical threat that nobody is able or prepared to identify.

Looks like the British Taxpayer and Serviceman is stiffed once more!

[lcortez]

Are the Nimrods not being replaced,with an order already being placed,albeit for 12 as oppossed to the current 18,believe I saw that in the paper,Delivering Security In A Changing world?

[Obi Wan Russell]

Originally Posted by SampanViking

Forgive me if I do not share your enthusiasm for the Carriers. At £2 Billion a piece, they cost the same as the US's Nimitz Carriers, but lets be honest, they ain't no Nimitz, as both Queenie and Prinny are going to be Diesel powered and lack therefore sufficient power to operate Steam Catapults (with instead a vague commitment to install electric ones at a later date if such things are ever invented)

We do however see a Defence Secretary awarding a contract to his own constituency, which is so blatant I am astounded.

So we have money for these new; toys recession and all, but nothing to replace the Nimrods (despite the Oxford Coroner calling for the fleet to be grounded) and other now clapped out gear that UK forces are expected to continue to use to undertake their current commitments. In other words nothing that we really need but money instead for prestige project for a future theoretical threat that nobody is able or prepared to identify.

Looks like the British Taxpayer and Serviceman is stiffed once more!

The price tag is misleading, they are not £2Billion a piece. A BIG chunk of the buying price is going towards restructuring the British shipbuilding industry. If we had invested in the Industry a couple of decades ago then you could knock at least a billion off the price tag now.

Electric catapults? I hope they have been invented, because the new class of US CVNs will have four of them each and they've already started work on them. I think General Atomics might have something to say on the subject seeing as how they are building the cats now...

Why do we need carriers? Well seeing as we're a landlocked country at the heart of Europe completley self sufficient in food, fuel and raw materials for our immense manufacturing industry, we can do without a navy altogether and just rely on the army and the air force to defend us... Just as well we aren't an island nation dependent on overseas trade from the far side of the world for our very survival. Then we'd actually need a navy. A navy without aircraft carriers is just a coast guard, because once warships venture beyond their own 'air umbrella' of AEW and fighter aircraft, they become vulnerable to enemy aircraft/missiles/ships/subs.

Nimrod replacement? Be patient, it's coming. It's called Nimrod MRA4, though as usual the numbers have been cut to unreasonable levels. They do work though. It would be foolish to base the next fifty years defence plans on the present operations. Iraq is winding down and that in itself will relieve some of the pressure on ops in the 'Stan.

[Neutral Zone]

I'm just finally glad that the new carriers are going to be built some 10 years after they were first proposed! I just hope that other programmes of capabilities aren't going to be cut to meet the bill. There's no point building 2 carriers if you haven't got a credible escort force!

[Mr T]

Originally Posted by SampanViking

At £2 Billion a piece, they cost the same as the US's Nimitz Carriers

As Obi Wan said, that isn't the cost per carrier. Any comparison with the Americans is flawed given the generous exchange rate, but the US carriers still cost more (£2.27 billion).

In other words nothing that we really need but money instead for prestige project for a future theoretical threat that nobody is able or prepared to identify.

Well that's sort of what you need your navy to do. You can't ask a potential matter to wait five years while you order an aircraft carrier - you have them or you don't!

More generally - what Obi Wan said.

[lcortez]

Yes,totally agree re the need for aircraft carriers,only question I have is,will 6 type 45's be enough protection for them,and serve the RN's other air defence needs at the same time?
Surely we would need at least 8,2 for each A/C,leaving 4 for other needs,or am I showing my lack pf knowledge?
Have to say,I share some of the concerns,re the winding down of capabilities in other areas,in particular the cutback's in infantry,surely boot's on the ground are needed,in the sort of light/medium op's envisaged in the latest defence White Paper?
Also the cutback's to the Chally's,down to 250!

Am I the only one who think's defence spending should be upped,given the interventionist nature of "our" foreign policy?

[Mr T]

Originally Posted by lcortez

will 6 type 45's be enough protection for them,and serve the RN's other air defence needs at the same time?

Depends what the Navy's needs are. If it's to have multiple deployments into hot zones with no coalition support, then the answer is no. But that is never going to happen. 6 will probably be enough, but it will mean there will be very few low-intensity missions such as Iron Duke has been on recently.

Am I the only one who think's defence spending should be upped

You know the answer to your question, surely.