tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post4710358665271562094..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: What destiny for collaboration with France? Gabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-35604713766297157642012-11-13T00:54:11.327+01:002012-11-13T00:54:11.327+01:00Re: this report on Anglo-French collaboration with...Re: this report on Anglo-French collaboration with FASGW(H) and other projects following the Lancaster House Agreement (2010)<br /><br />Co-operation certainly seems difficult to attain.<br />"If France opts out, it could undermine British confidence in cooperation".."London has made it clear it would look to the U.S. for an alternative if Paris fails to commit next year".<br /><br />http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121111/DEFREG01/311110001/France-U-K-Could-Partner-Anti-ship-Missile?odyssey=tabAnthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07384593323102710174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-57590012445830393022012-10-28T11:28:51.711+01:002012-10-28T11:28:51.711+01:00Understandable. That's pretty much what i thin...Understandable. That's pretty much what i think myself. When collaboration will be possible, i'm sure both countries will greatly benefit from it. And training together sure does not hurt. <br /><br />But at political level, i think some skepticism is unavoidable. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-84617102151540236692012-10-28T11:19:39.473+01:002012-10-28T11:19:39.473+01:00Gaby
I meant to add that I am not a francophobe....Gaby <br /><br />I meant to add that I am not a francophobe. I think that the two nations could form a most effective rapid deployment force (as well as other joint forces). The French forces' personnel are extremely able and they have some very capable equipment.<br /><br />It is just that on so many occasions in the past our respective political views have diverged so much over how to deal with crises, that I feel it does not augur well for future co-operation. Hope that I am wrong. MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-43267168648403586612012-10-27T21:54:12.628+02:002012-10-27T21:54:12.628+02:00Gaby
Thanks for the reply.
"Because i deem ...Gaby<br /><br />Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />"Because i deem it very likely that, in plenty of occasions, France and UK's thoughts will not match.)<br /><br />Yes, you can say that again, and again, and again. MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-46061974482967146182012-10-27T18:24:33.882+02:002012-10-27T18:24:33.882+02:00I don't think that kind of collaboration is at...I don't think that kind of collaboration is at risk, at least for now. The change of government in France is not currently a risk for joint work at operational level. <br /><br />Then, of course, we can and should ask ourselves how tight the limits of that collaboration are. <br />In how many cases would the joint force set sail together for operations other than training? <br />How often the policy of the two countries will not meet? <br /><br />Because i deem it very likely that, in plenty of occasions, France and UK's thoughts will not match. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-85986236219406511872012-10-27T18:20:00.970+02:002012-10-27T18:20:00.970+02:00Gaby
A very interesting post. In it you have tal...Gaby<br /><br />A very interesting post. In it you have talked mainly about about weaponry and joint projects with the French possibly being cancelled.<br /><br />However, what about wider matters concerning collaboration? Do you think it likely, for instance, that the proposed joint Anglo-French rapid reaction force (if that's what it's called) might also go?MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-3620697229915254232012-10-27T18:07:49.067+02:002012-10-27T18:07:49.067+02:00The Marte MK2/S and the MARTE ER have the same rad...The Marte MK2/S and the MARTE ER have the same radar and warhead, but the propulsion block is entirely replaced and the ER is a tail-fin steered missile, differently from the 2/S. That's why your data and mine do not match: you are looking at a different weapon. http://www.finmeccanica.com/Corporate/EN/Corporate/Settori/Sistemi_di_Difesa/Prodotti/Marte_MBDA/index.sdo<br /><br />As for costs, obviously mine is a suggestion, and there are many things i don't know. But 400 millions seem just out of any reality. <br /><br />The Naval Strike Missile is no option because it does not go on helicopters, that's what the RN needs. <br /><br />As for weight, that might be an issue, and i have reported it. However, i question the need for a missile that is so limited in terms of targets. For small FACs, there are the LMMs. At a medium scale, for fast crafts of greater size, one option is the Brimstone, recently trialed with success in this role: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=497 <br /><br />While for attacking larger, more complex targets the RN is down to pretty much two options: <br /><br />call in a SSN with spearfish <br />call in Harpoons from a frigate <br /><br />and the Harpoons in use in the Royal Navy are by now ancient. They haven't even be modernized. <br />In my view, a more capable and lethal helicopter-launched missile wouldn't hurt. <br />Indeed, if you think about it, for the Royal Navy the FASGW is Heavy, while for the French navy it is (was?) going to be their Light anti ship missile. <br /><br />Comes down to choices and assessment of needs. Just like the other fact, on which i'm in disagreement too, that Merlins do not have anti-surface capability beyond the machine gun. <br /><br />The MARTE ER might well not be the solution, but i think a rethink of the whole thing might be in order. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-6867136862263889752012-10-27T17:49:35.820+02:002012-10-27T17:49:35.820+02:00So how much is the MARTE meant to cost to develope...So how much is the MARTE meant to cost to develope? Also what is the cost per weapon? As its a larger missile it is more likely to cost more per unit than FASGW(H) would. When you consider that previous use of Sea Skua has been against smaller ships, then the larger warhead most likely isn't that important. It might be better for the helicopter to be carrying four missiles vs two. It can still use two missiles on the same target if needed but has the option of only using one if that is enough.<br /><br />Also its near to impossible to compare the ranges of missiles from public data. I don't think any offical figure has been released for the FASGW(H), but most reports talk about >50km. While some reports suggest a figure nearer to 100km. Similar figures have been suggested for the Spear 3 missile which really seems to be in a similar class to the FASGW(H). While you state a figure of 100km for the MARTE MK2/S, the MBDA website only states a figure of >30km. Not that I'm suggesting its range will only be 30km, but just that ranges are so hard to compare becuase little data is released about them. From most reports, the Sea Skua I has been used operationaly at twice its offical range. <br /><br />I'm not saying that MARTE won't be a good weapon and won't meet the RN's needs, but just that its not a straight replacement for Sea Skua or FASGW(H). Also even if that 400 million figure is correct, we won't know what it includes, or what extra costs changing to MARTE or some other missile would have. Adding the IIR and man in the loop would still cost money even if there have been studies on it. Also that 400 million might well include the costs of integration clearance the FASGW(H) on wildcat. <br /><br />Changing to MARTE or any other weapon would still need integration testing and while I'm not suggesting that will be a massive portion of the 400 million, we know from how the clearance of weapons on Typhoon is going so slow in order to save money, that these things aren't cheap.<br /><br />I certainly agree though that if France does pull out of the project that the RN should look at alernatives and not just straight away continue with the FASGW(H). The MARTE and Naval Strike Missile are two possible alternatives, but I would also think that they should look into what it would take to adapt the SPEAR 3 missile as that is closer to being the same class of weapon as the FASGW(H). There was once talk about sharing as much tech as possible between the FASGW(H) and SPEAR 3 but I haven't read anything about that recently. If they are sharing tech than pulling out of the FASGW(H) project could just result in the cost of the SPEAR 3 development increasing. <br /><br />MBDA MARTE range:<br />http://www.mbda-systems.com/products/maritime-superiority/marte-mk2-s/45-6/ Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-46549027591783088152012-10-27T16:54:29.763+02:002012-10-27T16:54:29.763+02:00The Anglo-French accord was flawed from the outset...The Anglo-French accord was flawed from the outset and here is why:<br /><br />When it was signed the UK had just been through its cuts, election and reorganisation. France on the other hand was still living in a fantasy land and to a certain extent still is. Thus everything they signed up for back in 2010 is likely to be on the table as their defence review gets underway. These arrangements need to be a marriage of equals and this one was not. <br /><br />As for Telemos, apart from BAE, who cares? It does not do anything particularly revolutionary, Reaper is in service and has an existing upgrade path and ultimately the UK tech base can be kept alive with small R&D contracts as it has been for the last decade. <br /><br />FASGW(H) does seem excessively expensive and I personally feel that a cheaper solution should be possible and without excessive expenditure. <br /><br />Lets also not forget that a central pillar of this whole Anglo-French love-fest fell apart when it was found that CdG could not operate F-35C and then the Brits decided not to use cats after-all anyway. The whole affair has been a complete waste of time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com