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

[Dewy]

The mention of the Alfa is fascinating, thanks for that. We had our own submarine builds in Australia, a non-nuclear sub dubbed the Collins class. It was apparently the loudest thing in the ocean,

It's the loudest thing in the ocean according clueless military experts on the internet, and the Liberal party (to discredit Kim Beazley). Because I'm lazy I'll just quote myself

"The hydrodynamic noise signature was loud at high speeds. The main cause for this was that the hull design was modified and no model was created to test the hydrodynamics of the new design. There were arguments over who should pay for the model, so it was never made. There were also issues of propeller cavitation but I'm not sure of the details of that. Note that none of these were issues related to Australian workers in Adelaide, these were design issues.


It's also worth pointing out that the main source of noise in the Oberons were machine vibrations being transmitted through the hull. Kockums overcame this in their submarines by placing the machinery on platforms that were mounted on rubber isolation blocks, and connected to the hull via flexible hoses rather than rigid pipes. So design wise the Collins class was on the right path to being much more quieter than the Oberons, if only someone tested the modified external hull shape."

Oh and those issues were fixed.

it essentially existed to make profits for investors.

What investors? And I'll think you'll find it existed because we needed a new submarine.

The contractors apparently insisted on massive up front payments,

What contractors?

then announced "delays" which meant the down payments sat in a bank attracting interest for a year or two, a substantial profit for zero work.

That never happened, work started straight away. Although it's arguable what the hell Rockwell were doing on the combat system--which was bar far the biggest flaw in the Collins and oddly enough never mentioned. You forgot a lot of other Liberal propaganda. Like Kockums bribing Labor MPs. They were billions of dollars over budget. They had massive building flaws because Australians can't make stuff (only mine and farm).

[Pielstick]

Back to the ever popular topic of the F-35...

The US is considering a bunch of new build F-15s and F-16s to cover the fighter gap left by the delays in the F-35 programme:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-c...1b26040b498e4f

I'm not sure what to make of it. I am (was?) pretty sure Lockheed would lobby extremely hard - and already have enough politicians and generals in their pocket - to make sure the US didn't order any more legacy fighters. As such I'd be really surprised if there actually was an order placed. I'd be interested to see how this pans out.

[Condottiere 40K]

62
It will be sock-blocked by any number of vested interests.

Though there might be some who'll consider a strategic necessity to have a Plan B, and keep some production lines open; perhaps that will the role for the Canadians, the Saudis and the Israelis.

[Pielstick]

I did read some speculation earlier that rather than creating an entirely new order the USAF might possibly want to append its own aircraft onto the end of a production run from an export order from a Middle Eastern state, probably Saudi Arabia.

[Condottiere 40K]

575
They may have to, if they can't keep the lines going through other export orders.

I just had the idea that if they found a way to produce cheap F-16s, they could try and compete against the Russians and the Chinese for Third World orders.

[Pielstick]

I really am quite surprised by this news. The possibility of the USAF acquiring new build teen series jets has been mooted by commentators for a long time now, but I honestly thought the F-35 lobby had such a strangle hold on the Pentagon that nobody would ever publically countenance such a move.

It undermines one of the central arguments for the F-35 - that it is the only choice if you want to be combat effective in the coming decades. If the big, bad USAF thinks that upgraded F-15s or F-16s can still be useful then that sends out an entirely different message. Especially at a time when the likes of Canada are re-assessing their requirements.

What possibilities are there? Well Saudi Arabia is getting the F-15SA which is the most advanced F-15 ever built. The USAF could tag an order onto the end of that production run. F-16 production is still going for at least another couple of years with new builds and re-manufacturing existing airframes for various customers. The F-16V could be an option, but nobody has ordered it yet. The UAE cancelled their new fighter competition last year to re-examine their requirements. Lockheed could pitch more Block 60 F-16s at them and the USAF could tag an order onto the end of that production run.

If Lockheed's lobbyists are losing their grip on the Pentagon then you could argue that maybe the USAF would want to order from Boeing as a means to signal its displeasure at the delays and cost overruns of the F-35. It would also keep Boeing in the fighter game for at least a little longer - I'm sure there are more than a few people in the Pentagon who are uneasy about having all their combat jets sourced from one manufacturer. Don't forget the LRS-B contract was just awarded to Northrop Grumman, so there is also the argument that Boeing needs at least something to keep it building combat aircraft past the end of the decade, otherwise that side of the business will be lost as a strategic asset.

[Condottiere 40K]

My crystal ball tells me that a future Administration may give the F-35 a Raptor haircut.

[Pielstick]

And here's another big surprise:

http://news.sky.com/story/1591964/pm...thin-two-weeks

Ahead of the imminent defence review the Chancellor announces the UK intends to buy 138 F-35B.

That's pretty much back to the initial intention of buying 150-ish about a decade ago before it was scaled back to a purchase of just 50. This probably adds credence to the speculation that the Tranche 1 Typhoons will be phased out in the next decade and replaced with F-35s.

Also note it also says two RN warships will be mothballed (which maybe again lends credence to what I've been told about the Type 45 having pretty serious problems) and the plans for procurement of the new Type 26 frigate are being scaled back.

[Cyclops]

It's the loudest thing in the ocean according clueless military experts on the internet, and the Liberal party (to discredit Kim Beazley). Because I'm lazy I'll just quote myself

"The hydrodynamic noise signature was loud at high speeds. The main cause for this was that the hull design was modified and no model was created to test the hydrodynamics of the new design. There were arguments over who should pay for the model, so it was never made. There were also issues of propeller cavitation but I'm not sure of the details of that. Note that none of these were issues related to Australian workers in Adelaide, these were design issues.


It's also worth pointing out that the main source of noise in the Oberons were machine vibrations being transmitted through the hull. Kockums overcame this in their submarines by placing the machinery on platforms that were mounted on rubber isolation blocks, and connected to the hull via flexible hoses rather than rigid pipes. So design wise the Collins class was on the right path to being much more quieter than the Oberons, if only someone tested the modified external hull shape."

Oh and those issues were fixed.



What investors? And I'll think you'll find it existed because we needed a new submarine.



What contractors?



That never happened, work started straight away. Although it's arguable what the hell Rockwell were doing on the combat system--which was bar far the biggest flaw in the Collins and oddly enough never mentioned. You forgot a lot of other Liberal propaganda. Like Kockums bribing Labor MPs. They were billions of dollars over budget. They had massive building flaws because Australians can't make stuff (only mine and farm).

I think it's pretty clear I'm no expert, and I'm very happy to be corrected. I'm not quoting Liberal party propaganda, mostly scuttlebutt heard from naval servicemen I know, one who served on the subs in question.

The noise issues I heard about included rusting parts connected to the propellers. A quick look at wiki shows you're quite right the main issue was the amateurish approach to design specs an changes.

The investors I mention were the parties investing in the ASC. The contractors included the U.S. suppliers (wiki says of the weapons system) but I'm not sure which.

it would be pretty normal practice to bribe relevant ministers, there are examples like the Bofors business in India ( even an amateur like me has heard of that), you might have rosy glasses about politicians but I think Labor has proven itself as corrupt as the Liberals and Nationals.

What was unusual about the Collins is that we didn't buy a proven off the shelf design, we went with something requiring a lot more development. Maybe that was responsible capacity building but it looks like an exercise in throwing an investment bone to a dwindling and impoverished state and making sure some profits are creamed off by a local group rather than the UK or US, our usual arms dealers. The fact that we went with a greenfields site in a completely new industry may explain the unusually high cost over runs, notorious in a procurement area known for blowouts. However I suspect it walks like a corrupt duck, rather than an incompetent duck.

If you're well versed in this and not a former ministerial aide I'm most happy to be told otherwise. As I say my impression comes from a few naval people, not officers and obviously not privy to the inside secrets.

Now that I think of it I may have been told a tall tale. I was also told submariners have a laundry cycle that means on certain watches once a week the seaman are all going about their duties naked or close enough to, I'm pretty sure he was pulling my leg there.

[Condottiere 40K]

I've always maintained that quid pro quo requires the UK to buy a hundred and fiftyish effing thirty fives.

On the bright side, by the time they are finally all delivered, most of the bugs will have been ironed out, and at least half will be replacing worn out air frames in any event.

[Dewy]

And here's another big surprise:

http://news.sky.com/story/1591964/pm...thin-two-weeks

Ahead of the imminent defence review the Chancellor announces the UK intends to buy 138 F-35B.

That's pretty much back to the initial intention of buying 150-ish about a decade ago before it was scaled back to a purchase of just 50. This probably adds credence to the speculation that the Tranche 1 Typhoons will be phased out in the next decade and replaced with F-35s.

Also note it also says two RN warships will be mothballed (which maybe again lends credence to what I've been told about the Type 45 having pretty serious problems) and the plans for procurement of the new Type 26 frigate are being scaled back.

Are the UK only getting F-35Bs?

I think it's pretty clear I'm no expert, and I'm very happy to be corrected. I'm not quoting Liberal party propaganda, mostly scuttlebutt heard from naval servicemen I know, one who served on the subs in question.

Most surface naval servicemen dislike submarines, in particular anything which could be considered to take away funding from the surface fleet (in RAN atleast). One of the main reasons we got the Oberons was for the surface fleet to train in ASW rather than to have submarines (previously the UK stationed submarines in Sydney so the RAN used them for training IIRC). There's a common rumour that the collins class were heavily over budget, so that's more than enough reason to dislike them.

The investors I mention were the parties investing in the ASC. The contractors included the U.S. suppliers (wiki says of the weapons system) but I'm not sure which.

ASC was a consortium (also the one tipped to lose the PDS), the "real investors" was the Australian government. Half of the ASC consortium (there was 3 companies plus the government) sold their shares to either the government or Kockums fairly quickly which makes it unlikely the Collins existed to make them money off of "delays". Rockwell (well the Rockwell lead consortium) were responsible for the combat system and weren't investors in ASC. Their combat system was actually by far the biggest problem with the Collins, and wasn't even close to being finished when HMAS Collins was ready to begin sea trials.

it would be pretty normal practice to bribe relevant ministers, there are examples like the Bofors business in India ( even an amateur like me has heard of that), you might have rosy glasses about politicians but I think Labor has proven itself as corrupt as the Liberals and Nationals.

There was no evidence of corruption, not even HDW thought there was corruption. It came down to the Submarine Evaluation Team (so DoD and RAN not politicians) believing Kockums had the better submarine, which the Germans found insulting naturally.

What was unusual about the Collins is that we didn't buy a proven off the shelf design, we went with something requiring a lot more development.

There was no MOTS design available.

Maybe that was responsible capacity building but it looks like an exercise in throwing an investment bone to a dwindling and impoverished state and making sure some profits are creamed off by a local group rather than the UK or US, our usual arms dealers.

All states actually bided to the bidders and the government (sounds strange I know) and SA was selected as the preferred location by both ASC and AMS.

The fact that we went with a greenfields site in a completely new industry may explain the unusually high cost over runs, notorious in a procurement area known for blowouts. However I suspect it walks like a corrupt duck, rather than an incompetent duck.

Again I'll just quote myself

"Counting for inflation, the Collins project ran $40 million over budget, not billions. Counting for the fast track program which was $1.17 billion (of which $150 million was spent fixing issues, the rest was spent on upgrades) the project came in at roughly 22% of the contract. Which as far as military projects go is actually quite good, and consider some of that 22% was outside the scope of the original contract. "

"In fact the cost per tonne (surfaced) for the Collins subs were cheaper than the international median, of all modern submarines built over 1,400 tonnes. You can see this data published in the paper Sub judice: Australia’s future submarine."

If you're well versed in this and not a former ministerial aide I'm most happy to be told otherwise. As I say my impression comes from a few naval people, not officers and obviously not privy to the inside secrets.

More than the average person but not particularly well versed. I just know the right people to listen to.

Now that I think of it I may have been told a tall tale. I was also told submariners have a laundry cycle that means on certain watches once a week the seaman are all going about their duties naked or close enough to, I'm pretty sure he was pulling my leg there.

Collins subs have a mixed complement (in other words both sexes), so that sounds like a sexual harassment issue waiting to happen. Last time I checked there was only 1 washing machine and drier on board so not enough space for 60 odd people's washing. And who are we kidding they don't wash their clothes because they smell like diesel again after 10 minutes.

[Pielstick]

The UK's 2015 Defence Review is being published tomorrow. It looks like the Naval Service is going to take a big hit.

I have it from a very reliable source that the Australians are looking to buy two of the RFA's new Tide Class tankers being built in Korea.

Are the UK only getting F-35Bs?

Looks like it. There was some speculation that the RAF may place an order for F-35A sometime in the middle of the next decade to replace the older Typhoons. However, as usual the mainstream media defence reporting is poor - they've just spent a few minutes showing footage of the F-35C on Sky News talking about the UK purchase. I suppose we'll find out more about any possible F-35A purchase tomorrow.

Also being reported the UK will purchase a new MPA to cover the gap left by the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 in the 2010 Defence Review.

[Stavroforos]

"By 2023, we will be able to have these jets - some of the most powerful in the world - the F35, on the decks of these carriers and Britain, second only to the United States, will be able to project power abroad in order to defend ourselves at home." -G. Osborne

Lol, yeah, that's an interesting and misleading way to label Britain's capabilities.

[DarthShizNit]

Lol, the British military. That's a good joke.

[Condottiere 40K]

Their special forces are quite good.

Everything else seems a race to the bottom, with some rather dubious procurement decisions.

[Pielstick]

The headlines from the defence review:

- £12bn uplift in equipment budget.
- The purchase of 138 F-35B
- Increase in budget from £20bn to £30bn for the Trident replacement.
- Typhoons extended to 2040 and an extra two squadrons to be equipped.
- The procurement of the Boeing P-8 Poseidon as a new maritime patrol aircraft.
- Type 26 Global Combat Ship procurement cut from 13 to 8 ships.
- HMS Ocean to be laid up.
- The creation of two "Strike Brigades" for dealing with emergent threats.
- £2bn extra each for special forces and GCHQ.
- Double the size of the RAF's MQ-9 Reaper fleet.

So it looks like quite a lot of new kit on the way, but the elephant in the room is morale and retention, with all the services haemorrhaging experienced personnel. This defence review does little to address that. I'm reminded of the words of a recent CDS - we run the risk of having an armed forces that are exquisitely equipped but poorly manned.

[Stavroforos]

How many F-35s was the UK originally going to purchase?

[Pielstick]

Everything else seems a race to the bottom, with some rather dubious procurement decisions.

Really?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There's a lot of things not right with the UK Armed Forces at the moment, but if the above represents a "race to the bottom" then we clearly have a very long way to go.

How many F-35s was the UK originally going to purchase?

138

[ShockBlast]

Or UK, as a smart country that it fancies itself, could put naval EFs on those aircraft carriers.
Those naval EFs are called Rafales.

[Stavroforos]

Oh, I thought there was supposed to be an increase in this review?

As far as what Condottiere said, Britain's military isn't on par with its international weight, but it is around the expected size and capability of a minor power from Europe. Britain's international power is much less dependant on its military than one would expect.