Yes, in fact that sort of served as an inspiration for it, though I forgot to mention it in the post. I think some lessons can also be taken from the Japanese and Italians, the latter of whom have used vehicles such as Freccia and Centauro for a while, and employ them to great effect.

I'm not sure that it does. They use the wheeled TD's primarily due to the mountainous geography of both nations. Great for defence in their particular circumstances, but I'm not sure that would be of use for the UK. The French AMX-10RC hasn't had the best of times in Ukraine. Centauro and Type 16 are undoubtedly better, but I'm not sure they would have put on a massively better showing.
 
So, in general, I would say even very developed societies are ready to go to very great lengths in the face of an existential threat to their livelihoods.
The trick is getting people in the UK seeing a Russian attack on Finland or Poland as an existential threat to the UK.
 
Centauro and Type 16 are undoubtedly better, but I'm not sure they would have put on a massively better showing.
I'm of the opinion that the UK would probably have to create its own unique doctrine, similar to the Stryker brigades, except using Boxers. I'm not sure how the Boxer compares to the Centauro/Freccia or Type 16. It would have to have doctrine written around it specifically in order for it to work. But some middle-ground in the British Army is necessary, if it wants to make the absolute best use of its resources with the limits imposed on it.
 
Most RAF airfields were hardened during the Cold War, not sure what construction has taken place since then though. What seemed survivable in 1975 or 1985 might not be today.
Additional passive defences are surprisingly cheap, US and South Korea recently hardened as base for about $130 million.
 
awareness of what would be at stake
This is probably a major difference. Finland has a long land border with a neighbour which has a history of putting its troops on the other side of its borders, and (from what I can tell) a pretty positive view of its armed forces. The UK has a short land border with Ireland, and a generation of young people raised on the idea that wars are fought so billionaires can make money at the expense of the lives of disadvantaged people.

When there was even a suggestion that the UK might need to think about conscription, the response of young Britons was to work out how to get exempted rather than be sent off to war. That might change - but for now, the UK population doesn't view war as an existential threat, or even much of a threat at all.
 
Additional passive defences are surprisingly cheap, US and South Korea recently hardened as base for about $130 million.

I'd question either how much hardening they needed to actually do, or to what degree for that budget. A properly equipped HAS with associated crew/ground facilities is serious money...

The problem we have is that a lot of the bases that were significantly hardened were let go. Including the most 'hardened' (Alconbury, Upper Heyford, Bentwaters). We've got Lossiemouth, Coningsby and Marham with HAS, but not for all the aircraft stationed there....with Leeming used only occasionally. Woodbridge exists as an MoD facility with HAS, but I suspect they haven't been maintained in years.

The one sensible thing we did, to a degree at least, was move the Army back fom Germany to new facilities on old airbases. But....we should have continued to maintain the aviation facilities there at a low level so they were available in time of war without signicant reconstruction (the RAF have used Kinloss recently whilst Lossie's runway had work, but you have to wonder how long Kinloss will remain usable without investment). Pity we didn't move the Army onto some of the USAFE superbases and retain that infrastructure...

Plus we're now building large, single point of failure, unhardened infrastructure (see the A-400, P-8, E-7 and F-35 facilities at Brize, Lossiemouth and Marham respectively, all very recently constructed).

We also ignore the really easy, proven to work and cheap solutions....where are all the Typhoon decoys? The MoD contracted a UK company to make realistic F-35 ground handling replicas for the training school at Culdrose....they built 4-5 which are in use every day....would it have been beyond the wit of man to purchase another 20 for Marham?


Building a revetment with HESCO or Texas barriers, installing pylons to cover with camouflage/anti-drone nets...all low cost...but zero interest.

I'm afraid MoD and RAF have got very, very complacent...
 
Woodbridge exists as an MoD facility with HAS, but I suspect they haven't been maintained in years.
I seem to remember the former nuclear weapon bunkers appeared on the TV programme Abandoned Engineering so not totally hopeful about the rest of the site.

We also ignore the really easy, proven to work and cheap solutions....where are all the Typhoon decoys? The MoD contracted a UK company to make realistic F-35 ground handling replicas for the training school at Culdrose....they built 4-5 which are in use every day....would it have been beyond the wit of man to purchase another 20 for Marham?
A plastic decoy might fool an optical camera but it wouldn't fool an IR sensor (reflectivity, hot fuel tanks, heat 'stains' on the apron etc.).
Plus most active aircraft would be inside a HAS as you point out (availability of HAS allowing of course), so visual decoy make no sense in that regard. Plus you need dummy ground equipment to really stage a convincing scene.

The RAF looked into this in the late 1970s and came to the conclusion that it just wasn't worth the cost (at least back then when they still had surplus Lightnings). I suppose they could use the Tranche 1 Typhoons once they are stripped out, but I don't really see it as a pressing need. There are much more pressing defence needs.
 
A plastic decoy might fool an optical camera but it wouldn't fool an IR sensor (reflectivity, hot fuel tanks, heat 'stains' on the apron etc.).
Plus most active aircraft would be inside a HAS as you point out (availability of HAS allowing of course), so visual decoy make no sense in that regard. Plus you need dummy ground equipment to really stage a convincing scene.

There are plenty of decoys that create the correct IR signature by the use of heaters.

Plus there are only 24 HAS at Marham...some aircraft have to be elsewhere, and that problem is growing. They've installed a long flightline shelter. Decoys would work very well under that. But more importanty in time of war they'd be really useful at dispersals and creating false targets.
 
There are plenty of decoys that create the correct IR signature by the use of heaters.

Plus there are only 24 HAS at Marham...some aircraft have to be elsewhere, and that problem is growing. They've installed a long flightline shelter. Decoys would work very well under that. But more importanty in time of war they'd be really useful at dispersals and creating false targets.
But if we’re at war is Marham of much relevance for the F-35…?

We dont have enough people to support the actual jets, let alone add fake ones.

The best way to track air activities would be mobile phone and social media data of its associated ground personnel. Wherever they are is wherever the jets are. If they’re silent they’re busy…

The Ukrainians had a lot of success tracking Rhssian troop concentrations from their phones, even down to when to hit somewhere (command conferences and bridge crossings).
Remember, this is combat search and rescue, where speed is critical.
The ability to drop people on the ground and pick them up is far, far more critical.
The high downwash is a result of sizing the rotors and wings for the old LHAs, that ended up being out of service before V22s officially entered service. The proper fix is probably a "V-22C" model, that's been stretched about 6ft forward-aft, 6ft longer wingspan, and has 5ft wider diameter rotors.
Interesting, but nobody is going to revist the utter nightmare that was defeloping and certifying the Osprey. That’d be madder than doing it in the first place.
Nope, the USMC absolutely required something with Osprey speed and range. Which means a Tiltrotor of some flavor. The whole deal came out of the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis and attempted rescue.
Hmm they absolutley wanted something and wrote documents to show that, but they definitely didnt absolutely need it.

The lesson of that crisis and attempt was act earlier to avoid the potential and then just dont try and do that.
The noise of a Chinook comes from the wide rotor blades, apparently. If they could make thin 5-bladed rotors like off a Sea King intermesh reliably, those would be far quieter.
Grew up listening to these echoing across the fields. Their noise do indeed travel much further as you never heard a Puma or a Wessex. Otoh they can be hard to pin to a specific direction.
As to why the Chinooks were originally chosen for special ops, they were twice as fast as a Huey. A loaded Chinook can hit 200mph, a loaded huey is usually around 100.
Faster than an Apache too, often left them behind in Afghan. Plus big and have proved battleworthy.

V22 is something that should have been strangled at conception, lives and billions saved for an absolutley marginal benefit that in no way makes any kind of cost benefit sense. Makes you feel sick when you’re in the back and the best moment is getting out. H-60 orders of magnitude cheaper and perfectly adequate. Afterall, they got to OBL as the “SF raid of this century so far”

Otoh, Merlin is also bit of a mess, completely unsuited to the battlefield, ludicrous 3 engine setup and a transmission that grossly limits its potential. If you’re a frigate with one cab then it’ll be airborne on blue moon only days.

Plus having been under one many times at sea, no more suited to CSAR than V22 or CH47 for downwash frankly. Indeed we drop it over (non known actively hostile) targets precisely to smash them about with its downwash as a distraction whilst the RIBs get the bootnecks the last few 10s of metres. Fundamental problem of a heavier thing with Sea King disc/blade constraints.
 
V22 is something that should have been strangled at conception, lives and billions saved for an absolutley marginal benefit that in no way makes any kind of cost benefit sense.
The people that used them in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to love them. As soon as the Generals figured out what an Osprey could do, they got super heavily tasked.

Bluntly, it's a 275knot-cruise VTOL that can fly ~800nmi on internal fuel at 275knots. 390 out, 390 back.
 
The people that used them in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to love them.
I didnt and I dont know anyone who did!
As soon as the Generals figured out what an Osprey could do, they got super heavily tasked.
As did every single helicopter out there.
Bluntly, it's a 275knot-cruise VTOL that can fly ~800nmi on internal fuel at 275knots. 390 out, 390 back.
But has a horrible safety record and they’re bigger numbers than a helo but less than a C130, there is no ordained reason that this is a necessary sweet spot just because it exists.

Jack of all trades master of none, absolutely useful for niche occasions but at truly absurd cost - the money spent on V22 could have bough the marines several H60/folding H47/H53/H64/C130 fleets and the excess running costs of V22 have to come from somewhere else. Have to hand it to the USMC for getting their way but to me it shows how pet projects can badly distort things.

I also just dont beleive it is inherantly safe enough.

Its a bit like the escort cruiser to me. Want fast transit use a transport ac. Want VL use a helicopter. A modern Caribou equivalent would do more further faster and would need very little ground to operate from. Hell its usable payload is more like Twin Otter and many of those can land on water which V22 cant.

But despite all that, my fantasy RAF has a SF sqn of them because unarguably they are cool ;-)
 
But has a horrible safety record
It has a lower accident rate than every helicopter by a very large margin.



Jack of all trades master of none, absolutely useful for niche occasions but at truly absurd cost - the money spent on V22 could have bough the marines several H60/folding H47/H53/H64/C130 fleets and the excess running costs of V22 have to come from somewhere else. Have to hand it to the USMC for getting their way but to me it shows how pet projects can badly distort things.
Like the UK, the USMC uses a ~24pax "helicopter" for most of their troop hauling. It can carry 2 squads of 13 and their gear. Before the Osprey it was the H46 Sea Knight, H47's baby brother.

The USMC only sends 3-4 UH1s out with a MEU. Basically, the only parts of the MEU that use UH1s are the medics and the Recon folks.

Chinooks are the same size as an H53E.

H64s require a lot of expensive waterproofing, while twin Hueys and Sea Cobras were actually designed as marinized corrosion protected aircraft (see the difference between the UK and US versions, and the complaints about the lacking corrosion protection on the UK Apaches!)

A C130 cannot land on an LHA. It's a very snug fit on a ship 200ft longer! The USMC still operates 70x KC130s, however.



I also just dont beleive it is inherantly safe enough.
Then you are lettings your feelings override the facts that it has an accident rate far below that of the safest helicopters.

The statistics don't lie.
 
It has a lower accident rate than every helicopter by a very large margin.
That is entirely contrary to the data Ive seen which puts it more than double.
Like the UK, the USMC uses a ~24pax "helicopter" for most of their troop hauling. It can carry 2 squads of 13 and their gear. Before the Osprey it was the H46 Sea Knight, H47's baby brother.
Very very rarely does any 24 pax helicopter carry 24. Very few V22 flights will have 2 sqauds. Its largely irrelvent to compare helos to tactical ground organisations.

All my flights over Afghan in C130s had less than 10 people and 2 small pallets. These were just regular A to B flights. Likewise my helo flights have been a similar fraction of nominal payload. These things spend most of their lives half to nearly empty, and that was on ops!

I cannot inagine how sht it must be to be one of 26 people plus kit in that thing. In fact I just dont believe it.

The USMC only sends 3-4 UH1s out with a MEU. Basically, the only parts of the MEU that use UH1s are the medics and the Recon folks.
At least you dont have Wildcat though so thank your lucky stars.
Chinooks are the same size as an H53E.
Merlin takes the same footprint. Carries far less. Hence why not wanted on battlefield.
H64s require a lot of expensive waterproofing, while twin Hueys and Sea Cobras were actually designed as marinized corrosion protected aircraft (see the difference between the UK and US versions, and the complaints about the lacking corrosion protection on the UK Apaches!)
You could have fixed that for a fraction of V22 spend.
A C130 cannot land on an LHA. It's a very snug fit on a ship 200ft longer! The USMC still operates 70x KC130s, however.
You dont need to. Got something big/heavy, sling it under a 53.
Then you are lettings your feelings override the facts that it has an accident rate far below that of the safest helicopters.

The statistics don't lie.
I think you might need to source that.

Data I found shows a class A mishap of 3.1/100,000 flight hours.

Nearly double the Army and Air Force averages although comparable with rest of USMC.

Given that includes AV8 and CV flying its not a great indicator for the V22 and USMC. Having seen all US services in the flesh I personally believe the USMC is deficient in safety full stop. The stats seem to back that up.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom