Britain and Poland to work together on Polish air defence system

That one is still hotly debated. For starters the F35 in question definitely had the Luneberg lenses fitted, which greatly amplify the aircraft’s RCS. They also had a spotter at the airshow, to let their control wagon know when the aircraft was taking off and landing.

The Twinvis system is not new, but a evolution of bistatic radar, i.e. where the transmitter and receiver are widely separated. For example Chain Home was a bistatic radar system. However Twinvis take the concept of a moving hole to determine a stealthy aircraft’s bearing, direction of travel and velocity. It works by using existing commercial transmitters such as mobile phone masts, TV and radio broadcasts to build a RF map of an area. If an aircraft travels through the area it will disturb the original map, therefore you can tell that there’s an aircraft travelling through it, even if its stealthy.

However, the system must rely on multiple transmissions that are separated by quite some distance. If one or a couple of these are taken out, it drastically skews the original map. It has been claimed the system is an effective passive radar system, that can detect stealthy aircraft, which is true during peacetime. If NATO were involved in a war with Russia, one of the first things Russia would attack is the mobile phone network. The biggest issue with the system though is that it cannot give you height information, as it relies on omni-direction transmissions.

Remember reading how the Serbs managed to down an F117 it was very clever using a mix of their more powerful Ground based Air defence radars along with position prediction from the information that offered, to get around the fact that their fire control radars could not paint the target. They hoped that the missiles would based on position presumption get close enough to pick up the target which on that occasion it could. Important therefore that the stealth aircraft don’t follow predictable routes or speeds for that matter, out of a feeling of invulnerability.

The feeling of invulnerability seems to have led to a sense of complacency, with, for example, the departure times of F117 missions being readily observable from the base in Italy, or continuing with missions when escorts weren’t available.

In the case of the F117 shoot down over Serbia wasn’t there accusations of a Leak from the NATO Mission Planning Centre – it’s much easier to assertain where a Stealth Aircraft might be if you knew where it was likely to be at a certain time?.

Thanks Robert. Understand the Radar issues. What I’m talking about is magnetic anomaly tracking. Resources sector flies planes over prospective regions looking for the slightest change in magnetic density in base rocks as they fly overhead. Changes detected often reflect the difference in magnetic signature caused by intersections of rock types and/ or dry rock and rocks saturated in water or oil thousands of meters below other rocks. Against a blank canvas of an empty sky I thought I had read something a long time ago to effect the magnetic density of an aircraft could be tracked as it moved across the sky…stealth or otherwise. May have just been a heavy night !!

P

😄 who knows what wacky technology is being looked at these day’s. As with most of this anti stealth talk. Detection is one thing, tracking and engaging is a whole other ball game. And yet despite the advances in radar technology, everyone is still desperate to develop stealth aircraft. Russia, China, new 6th gen platforms like Tempest, NGF, NGAD, F/A-XX. All stealth.

One of the techniques that is be looked at, is the ionization generated by the exhaust gas pushed out the back of a jet engine. At certain frequencies it will reflect radar, but it is dependent on the engine’s generated exhaust gas temperature being high enough to cause ionization, such as when using reheat.

If it can be made to work it will only give you rough information, which can be improved upon by using it in a network. However, much like the Twinvis system Nigel mentions, it won’t be able to give you height information. Which will be crucial in forming an engagement plot for a surface to air missile for example.

Hey Davey. Ill leave it at this but the Aeromagnetic survey process is used to calculate both Depth and Intersection points of the Magnetic anomaly. Important issue is to compare the results recorded versus the prevailing regional back-ground magnetic force. Can be complicated pointing downwards from an aircraft flying over an extensive survey area with overlapping rock types multiple KM’s below the surface…but that is what they do. I could imagine it will be a lot easier using ground based acquisition stations pointing upwards with a virtual zero background force. Real time processing power of data acquired would be the key difference between resources industry and military needs although the issue would not be what form and extent of anomaly, but rather is there an anomaly Y/N that doesn’t show up on Radar….Concentrate further id efforts on that anomaly.

I suppose they are using synthetic aperture imaging techniques. This is where you take a linear series of snapshots of the ground below then using a computer to stitch the images together. By using disrupted phase change techniques you can work out the depth of an object. But to do it in real time will need megabucks of signal processing.

Similar to my response to WZ post, I imagine that it’s a lot easier to track a stealth aircraft that’s not trying to hide from you. On the other hand, if you are its intended target, then detecting and tracking it becomes much more complex.

During normal operations, stealth aircraft will fly with a number of devices fitted to them that magnify their radar cross section (RCS). These can range from angular tabs to Luneberg Lenses. The idea is to hide the true value of the aircraft’s RCS.

The F35 for example always flies with at least two Luneberg lenses fitted. It is alleged that the F35 has a RCS measuring 0.005m2. With the lenses fitted these magnify the RCS to around 0.1m2. Which is still a lot small that all 4th and 4.5 gen jets.

If the gloves come off in a peer vs peer conflict, it is debatable if the lenses come off completely. Because as soon as they’re off the enemy can measure the aircraft’s RCS. But hopefully it would be too late for them to do anything about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_radar

I’ve described the issues before, Quantum Radar is a pipe dream, that can work over very short distances in a lab! Trying to field it on something as small as an aircraft, definitely won’t happen in my lifetime. Unless they solve the problem of inventing quantum memory that can hold the captured entangled twin of the transmitted photon without disturbing or altering it. Therefore, you will have to rely on using a fibre optic whose length is matched to the photons transmitted and return distance. Otherwise you will not be able to compare the two twins to determine a target’s distance etc.

Well, they seem to be having some success in solving the problem.

A quick question, how is it now possible to detect and track a stealth aircraft? we’ve had this conversation many times in the past!

Looking forward to your informative reply as always.

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630/page/Focus%20on%20Quantum%20Memory

Gosh, where to start? It’s very chicken and the egg scenario. When one person develops a counter to a radar, the other will develop a counter to that, to try a nullify the effect.

With regards to an aircraft design countering radar, there are quite a few techniques that are used. The easiest is to use shaping/faceting (ala F117). Where the aircraft’s surfaces and leading/trailing edges are angled, so the transmitted wave is directed away from the receiver. This gets a lot more complicated when you introduce bi-static radar. This is where the transmitter and receiver can be separated by a considerable distance. To make matters worse you can use multiple receivers collecting data from the one or more transmitters. With this type of network system timing is crucial. However, it does mean that a radar system will stand a better chance of detecting some reflected energy. As the aircraft will not be able to direct the transmitted wave away from all the receivers.

With a monostatic radar system, where the transmitter and receiver are collocated. The transmitter’s effective radiated power (ERP) is a major factor, along with transmitted wavelength and the type of waveform the wave uses. This is where the battle between radar absorbent materials (RAM) and radar is constantly evolving. Since the start of radio broadcasting, there were materials known that could absorb RF. However, most of these were fairly heavy and bulky and really only suitable for ships (Salisbury screen) and submarines.

However, a Dutch company in the 1950s called Phillips noticed a phenomenon when using BASF recording tapes. When they were testing CRT TVs, and recording the data on the tapes. The data was less in amplitude then expected. The tape was attenuating the test broadcast signal. This led to Phillips publishing a paper on iron ferrite attenuating RF. Some bright spark in the US, looked at this and realized that iron ferrites could be used to attenuate radar. However, attaching it to an aircraft become a project in itself. But, the issue was solved by using chopped up parts of tape and small iron ferrite balls suspended in a gloopy paint.

The iron ferrite would only work over a fairly narrow bandwidth. So the balls and tape had to be sized to the expected radar wavelengths of threat radars. It basically worked similar to a resistor, where the RF was absorbed and converted to heat. The aircraft’s heat rise delta was marginal, due to the aircraft’s large surface area. Much like a radar jammer, there is a point where the RAM becomes overwhelmed and radar energy is reflected back, i.e. breakthrough. This was the problem with the SR-71 and its iron ferrite coating. If the radar was transmitting at a frequency above or below that of the working wavelengths of the RAM, the SR-71 was easily visible.

The aircraft did have another trick up its sleeve which worked, but not as well as the coating. In the wing’s leading and trailing edges under the skin was a saw tooth design. This used a different foam based RAM material and covered a lower spectrum of the radar band. It had a varied density where it got thicker towards the root (tip) of the triangle. It acted more like a baffle than an attenuator. So it also had a breakthrough point.

The F117 built on the SR-71’s experience, in that it used a newer form of ferrite coating that operated over a wider bandwidth, but also added faceting. With these two combined it made the aircraft nearly invisible for the radar technology of the day. But as the Serbs proved it wasn’t totally invulnerable.

The F22 went in a new direction. It used a development of the RF baffles as the main means of countering radar, but also added leading and trailing edge alignment, wing/body blending, plus a new type of surface coating. The F35 went a step further where it has incorporated the surface coating into the composite skin.

However, none of these are totally radar invisible, there is still the thorny issue of breakthrough. In the past pulse-doppler radars used a Cassegrain (concave dish) (Foxhunter AI24) antenna, which is not great at limiting sidelobe generation, but does develop a nice transmitted lobe. However, the lobe has quite a wide beam, say 15 degrees if you’re lucky. Spread across the surface area of the beam is the total radiated power after free space losses (losses due to atmospheric attenuation). The narrower you can make the beam the more energy is concentrated over a smaller surface area. This led to flat planar arrays (Captor-M). These use basically Yagi type elements to tighten the beam’s diameter. This narrowed the beam to about 10 degrees. But better results were obtained using passive electronic steered arrays (PESA). By using phase interference the beam can not only be steered but made much narrower. This can further be improved upon by using active electronic steered arrays (AESA) that can get the beam angle down to 2 degrees.

For an aircraft to counter AESA, requires a whole new way of thinking. As the beam can be made much tighter, more energy can be packed into the surface area. When this is combined with very high frequencies. Things like panel gaps, surface irregularities, rivet heads, dissimilar materials abutting each other come into play. This is why you see sawtooth edges and tape material on the F22, B2 and F35 access doors and covering panel gaps. The aircraft has to be made a lot more smoother, we may be seeing the first US fighter without vertical stabilizers for this reason.

No matter what you do with RAM, there will always be a point where the radar’s transmitted energy overwhelms the materials ability to absorb or attenuate the signal. Therefore, there will be a definitive point at which the aircraft becomes visible to the radar. This is where AESA also has an advantage. When receiving it still uses phase steering to capture the reflected energy. So the majority of the antenna will be looking in that direction. If the system is using Gallium Nitride (GaN) components. These generate less internal noise when amplifying and filtering the very weak return signal. This means it can detect something further away on less received signal.

At the lower end of the radar spectrum in the UHF, L and S bands, you have a phenomenon called resonance. This is where the aircraft has an edge that is about 1/4 of the radar’s transmitted wavelength. This resonance will cause the transmitted signal to be reflected back towards the receiver. However the signal is very weak as the resonance causes a scattering of the reflected signal. Both Russia and China claim they have developed anti-stealth radar operating in the UHF band. But, these radars have to rely on the aircraft’s angle of approach to the radar for the resonance effect to work. If the aircraft is approaching with a frontal aspect, the edges will be greater than the radar’s wavelength, it’s only when the aspect changes so that the radar can see the shorter wing tips, underwing pylons etc that it works, in theory. The problem though is that the Russians and Chinese are using a computational model of say a F35 to work with. They don’t have any real data to work with. As the aircraft when flying operational are still fitted with the Luneberg lenses, which massively amplifies the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS). Israel have reported finding a Russian “anti-stealth” radar operating in Syria.

At the bottom end of the radar spectrum we have the HF radars. These mostly use ionospheric transmission bouncing to see beyond the horizon. Therefore, they have a better chance of seeing the aircraft, as the majority of energy is bouncing off the aircraft’s flatter upper surface. Plus the RAM that counters these wavelengths is a lot harder to incorporate in to an aircraft due to their size. The majority of energy will bounce away from returning to the transmitter. An incredibly small amount of energy is being returned to the receiver. Therefore, it has to be made super sensitive, which means its is liable to false echoes, especially from environmental factors such as storms.

The radar transmission is just one facet of determining if it can see a stealthy aircraft. Today, the overriding factor is signal processing power. Cheap graphic processors that can do multiple consecutive and simultaneous floating point calculations, has led to a revolution in radar signal processing. They have given a new lease of life to older radars, think Crowsnest’s Searchwater for example. As they can sift through and handle larger amounts of data. They have helped push out the detection ranges of older radars against stealthy targets.

On traditional radar alone, you can still detect a stealth aircraft. The question is how far away you can detect it? There have been a lot of theories on how the F35 would face up against the S400 system. Some have theorized that the F35 could get as close as 25 miles before it is detected. However, as neither Russia nor the USA have either a working F35 or S400 respectively, it is at best, a best guess estimate.

In the future, more and more radars will be using AESA back up with signal processing that puts today’s systems to shame. But to counter this, RAM will also evolve, there is even talk of pass through materials. These would be materials that allow the radar’s transmitted photons to pass straight through. Which is primarily seen as a means to counter bi-static radars and probably quantum radars (if they are ever actually fielded). There have been aircraft already produced that used these materials. Perhaps the most famous was the DeHaviland Mosquito. The wooden construction allowed radar to pass through it. Unfortunately, it allowed the radar to see everything inside it, such as the engines, wiring, bombs etc, so it could still be seen by the ground controllers. But I would forecast that we will see a combination of RAM and see through materials being used on future aircraft/weapons systems.

Sorry, not mentioned waveforms and how they interact with a stealthy target. It is quite involved, so I’m off for a beer and a think!

Enjoy the beer and thank you for taking the time to post, very interesting and informative.

IBM has made further advance it would appear?

IBM claims advance in quantum computingBy Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website
Published
3 days ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59320073

And Sky Sabre already has EO/IR/IFF & an excellent FCS.

It seems a bit daft for the UK to invest in another system that does exactly the same.

I don’t think the UK is ‘investing’. We’ve formed a partnership that involves MBDA with CAMM but it doesn’t appear to need any significant UK investment, seems to be Poland only. I suspect this will turn into more MBDA investment in Poland, which I suspect bodes well for a Brimstone purchase as well…and perhaps Meteor and Spear/Spear EW for F-35A.

I was replying to the comment that the UK should consider buying the eventual Polish product. Which I think is kinda daft.

Yep, it just has a bigger rocket motor from Avio.

Its also just frustrating when you see smaller nations taking our gear and ordering them in larger numbers, such as Australia buying more t26.

Thing is, they don’t have a nuclear weapons umbrella to support and look what the US marines can do with a similar budget to our MoD!

We effectively have 4 service to support out of one budget, everyone is bound to get a bit squeezed here and there.

And we have a hell of a lot of kit Australia doesn’t have.

Hi Steve, we just need the RN to order at least one more T26 and we’re even!

Yes but we also have 5 Type 31, 6 Type 45 and will order 5 Type 32, so comparing apples with oranges.

From EDR magazine:

While retaining the CAMM’s basic architecture (RF Seeker, warhead, active laser proximity, actuators, inertial measurement unit, electronics and power unit, two-way datalink and programmable systems), the ER variant is longer (4.2 meters) to incorporate an extended booster/sustainer rocket motor developed specifically for the MBDA missile by Italian company’s Avio, in a larger calibre (190 mm) propulsion section. Consequently, the overall weight of the missile has increased from 99 kg to 160 kg. The interceptor’s aerodynamics have also been improved, adding strakes to the missile central body which design has been subsequently refined, alongside small fins to the forward section and a redesigned and more performing front seeker radome. According to MBDA, improved kinematic characteristics embodied in the CAMM ER increase the maximum range, the over 40 km official range, this being however considered a conservative figure according to different industrial sources. The CAMM/CAMM ER family of munitions is equipped with the same solid-state digital active radar seeker, offering true all-weather performances with excellent clutter rejection capabilities. Having the co-design authority (with MBDA UK) and being the manufacturer of the seeker for the CAMM ER at Italy’s Fusaro centre of excellence for guidance systems of the European group, MBDA Italia also designed and produced the new ceramic front seeker radome applied not only to the CAMM ER but also to the CAMM munition.

Hi,

This is very good news if true, do you have a source for that? It makes good sense. Is there any indication that tge RN will get the ER missile to? Sea Ceptor ER on T26/T45 would be a major plus.

Read it from a Tweet from the Co of 7 ADG I recall, or maybe D-RA. Sorry, Director Royal Artillery. I recall UKAFC had a link to it on the Twitter feed months back.

I read on Jane’s that Italians and French also seem to be employing the newer Land Aster Samp/t system based on the Aster 30 NG. This could be more at the Patriot level SAM. I’m not sure of any UK involvement with this but the missile tech will be in our T45 Asters. Back to this article, it’s good to hear the UK is looking at CAMM-ER as the UKs ports, bases, key infrastructure, and people(!) could all do with some more serious SAM cover.

What SAM cover? Currently there is none! The Army’s system is for deployment…..

The UK’s MoD were also part of the funding for the Aster NG. It was MBDA that let slip that the NG will be going on the T45s. The Aster upgrade program includes a new radar (not AESA yet), plus a new rocket booster (different fuel type) that gives it the improved range for tackling medium range ballistic missiles.

Sounds very good. The zT45 will be a formidable unit with 48 ASTER 30 NG ans 24 Sea Ceptor. I would like to see the RN getting CAAMS ER.

Yes I think ASTER 30 1NG has a new improver radar and is a medium range ABM system. I would like to see the UK getting it as part of our land based air defence.

Back to this article, it’s good to hear the UK is looking at CAMM-ER as the UKs ports, bases, key infrastructure, and people(!) could all do with some more serious SAM cover.

There are no SAM defence for ports and it is not expected there will be. Same btw for France, Germany ( i think they have some Patriots for field deployment ) . Italy might still have some obsolete Aspides but those are for airbases.

From Twitter

Gabrileli Molinelli: Is the British Army looking at buying into CAMM ER? I hope it is. Fastest and cheapest way to a significantly larger protected area…

Col Graham Taylor: Yes. 40km MRAD range is coming

Just 40km…i bet it’s more than that.. Lol 😁

I couldn’t see any evidence that the UK gov has invested in it, details I saw was only Italy so far. Has that changed? Same with the new Aster versions, no UK investment that I can find details of.

UK recently joined the Italian programme to recondition Aster 30 to NT standard. The NT programme was jointly funded by Britain and France, Italy joined later.The Defence Command Paper says that the British Army will get new medium and short ranged GBAD systems – its widely thought to incude CAMM-ER as the medium range element and a mix of LMM/Fury/Martlet (from Starstreak launchers) and DE / EA C-UAS weapons. hhttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/500m-firepower-upgrade-for-type-45-destroyers

It was a joint project from the get go.

as does CAMM, the seekers for one, are made in Italy.

Afaik seekers are made in UK, but the ceramic head is in Italy. The new control surfaces necessary for the bigger CAMM-ER are made in Italy obviously.

Seekers are made in Fusaro, Italy just as the Aster seekers are. In fact …

There are no new “control surfaces”. Strakes and a small fin were added to the booster and missile bodies to improve aerodynamics.

You see arrogance, I see reality.

It’s like saying France, UK or Germany are not superpower.
We are not, our time is over.

I dont think turkishs or russians are sad to not be qualified as European. Why ? Because they have their own identities so they dont care.

As for the UK, well, I dont give the rules I just see the impact.

I dont even see the problem here.
When we talks about american, do you think about mexicans, canadians, brasilians and other ? No ? But they are all americans.

You probably think, like all the world about the USA. That’s the same here.

‘I dont think turkishs or russians are sad to not be qualified as European. Why ? Because they have their own identities so they dont care.’

Well funnily enough the UK wanted to retain its identity so has left. If the countries left in the EU wish to lose the identities they have to be called Europeans then fair play.

Agreed.

Poland is the greatest beneficiary of the EU fundings, so … I dont think so.

As of Macron being the biggest threat for the UK, wait… what ?
Do you realize that most of the brexit issues are coming from the UK itself ? The EU is literally passive…
The lone real active situation is about fishings rights, and if we look carefully the data, it’s totally trivial for both UK and France (from a global view), but the most affected will be the UK…

“Are not the actions of an ally.”
Read that from a country of the AUKUS, sorry but… it’s a lot hypocritical.

I know, it’s an english thing to say “its the fault of the french”, but hey… you must look twice here.

Now your making things up, exactly where did I say macron was threat to U.K.?
also it may be your opinion that the problems come from the U.K. but not everyone agrees. For instance a President threatening to cut off power to the U.K. from france because less than ten small boats weren’t given fishing permits, even though 90% had been given permits and it was quite legal for those boats to be refused on the agreement on fishing, macron is nothing but confrontational on most issues for last year. My french friends feel it’s distraction from his local problems
you also say Poland won’t leave because of EU funding but if u asked everyone before brexit they would have said same that U.K. won’t damage its trade and economy, can’t be done to seperate with EU but it can be done as long as you see the cost is worth the effort. I tell you now Macron has many remainers like me turn towards brexit. Stuff cost if he is example better of out

“Poland won’t leave because of EU funding but if u asked everyone before brexit they would have said same that U.K”
Pretty different, look at the balance of Poland.
You cannot compare the UK which was slighlty independant even in the EU with the Poland fully integrated with the €.
Since you cant understand the difference between the 2 countries I dont think you can understand anything in the EU.

Of course Macron is doing politics, but hey, even if he yell or anything, if the UK was more flexible on the deals, the others countries will lead to an end on this.
Do you think France alone can dictate the EU ? Absolutely not, Germany, France or Italy, none of the 3 biggest can totally dictate the EU.

The UK is in this situation not because of the France crying fishermens, it doesn’t help of course, but it’s not the reason.

The UK is in this situation because they want to have the benefit of the EU without any little malus. And one of the biggest issue is Ireland ofc.
It’s just totally unacceptable for the EU to accept, why would we accept such deal ? The UK has nothing if just some fish… And even here it’s not really the biggest issue.

I think your BJ & media focus on Macron because its more easy to say “because of the french”, than accept the fact you have totally messed everything since a year.

As a french, I repeat, Macron is not a golden emperor, he is nothing and CANT decide for the EU.
Dont even think Macron is gaining anything with the “fish war” for the next election, most of us dont care such a small scale affair.
For your information, in the south west, french and spanish fisherman do their “fishs wars” regularly with guns…
Do you read anything about this ?

Most of the french are just smiling about the “back and forward” of BJ, and the ineffectivness of all UK-EU talks.
Losing the UK affect only a small part of the northern France, so no one cares.
And that’s the biggest difference between us…

For me I prefer to see this end as soon as possible, because we have a lot of bigger subjects in the world than stupid neighbor issues between UK-EU.

Also the AUKUS deal well the Australians no longer wanted the deal, the kit wasn’t what they wanted (plus local issues with the engineers in Oz) now the way it was done has been stated to have been thoroughly planned by the Australians, they couldn’t risk prewarning france and the news getting out. It had nothing todo with the U.K. or USA. It has been stated that Oz actually contacted the french to discuss and no one came back to them (unproven)

Dont care about wanted to drop the deals, its not the question.

“It had nothing todo with the U.K. or USA.”
You can say that to unaware people but UK and US cant just be so silly.
2 weeks before the AUKUS deals, FR and AUS was in a public declaration on TV where the aussie was “happy” for french-australia program.

How can you just say seriously the UK and US was not aware of the situation ?

If you really think that, you are clearly disconnected with the reality.

The reality was that the French had been missing milestones on the programme for some time. The costs were going up and the inservice date was going into the future. Not to mention what was on offer would have been old by sub standards when it arrived – no AIP etc. There was serious talk in Auz of cancelation even before AUKUS.

“been missing milestones on the programme for some time”
False, the Aussie just change things every years.
They also lack of basics infra in Australia.

“The costs were going up and the inservice date was going into the future.”
Costs was mainly because the base project was for 8 subs, expanded to 12, and the AU$ has lost 30% of its weight against the €.

The lasted real costs growth was about 15%, nothing “important” in such military contract.

For comparison, look the hunter class, and its a surface ship….

“Not to mention what was on offer would have been old by sub standards when it arrived – no AIP etc.”
Again, Aussie choice, stop trying to put things on Naval Group when its the client’s choice.

In all case, we dont care, cancelling a contract is not a big issue, it’s a right.
We can all laugh at the fact they dont have any subs before 2040, or even maybe never since the HEU will drop a big international issue and… oh wait only France and China make LEU reactor.

It’s always funny to see so much unaknowledgement about subject but always affirmative like the lone truth.

I think the Australians should have gone fore nuke boats from the start and not messed about with a conventional design. It is clearly not suitable boat to deal with the Chinese. They need nuke boats.

I do not think you can deny the project was unpopular in Australia and there were strong calls for cancelation before AUKUS.

Whatever the reasons the programme was growing in cost was late and was offering a boat that could not do the job. They were right to cancel it.

I think had the Naval Group just taken things as just one of those things all would have been well. But instead the French accused the Australians of lies, the British of opportunistic treachery and then they recalled their ambassadors from the US and Australia. Throwing toys out of the pram like this makes France look foolish on the world stage. It also will make customers think twice about buying French.

“I think the Australians should have gone fore nuke boats from the start and not messed about with a conventional design. It is clearly not suitable boat to deal with the Chinese. They need nuke boats.”

I agree, but dont forget the situation was different 5-10y ago.
-Australia doesn’t have any nuclear industry (Except U mining)
-Australians have a big anti-nuclear faction
-Nuclear reactor are one of the most secret assets

“I do not think you can deny the project was unpopular in Australia and there were strong calls for cancelation before AUKUS.”
Of course I cant deny, but why so much ?
-The costs ? I’ve already told you, the data are not so harsh.
-Quality of subs ? Except the unadapted but desired prop everything is fine
-Time ? Delayed by the will of Aussie mostly, if 4 of 12 could be built in France, they could probably had one of them already.

We already know that the programs was highly politised and used by the last AU GVT, but also by exterior entities.

“But instead the French accused the Australians of lies, the British of opportunistic treachery and then they recalled their ambassadors from the US and Australia.”

Because it was not the fact ? In 2 weeks the aussie goes from “Everything is fine, we are happy to work with France !” to “We dump you and sign a deal with the US!”.
Tell me it’s a proper thing to do, in the back.

Now, I will give you my opinion.

For both industrial and political point of view, the Australians have lose everything on the subs part.

The best thing for the Aussie at this state will probably not to dump the french but to review totally the deal.

Buy some Scorpene SSK on the shelf from France to fill the gap until the nuclear subs can be in active service.
With this review, the aussie can also work in coop with France on the nuclear subs.
Since France is the lone western country to have LEU reactor, its also the lone country able to not break the TNP for the Aussie.
Because its something forgetten by a lot of people but, the HEU of the Virginia/Astute is a good thing if you have the industry, but it’s big issue on the international side for a non nuclear country.

So, to resume:
-Some modern but not so costly SSK to fill the gap
-US or UK Hull design for the nuclear subs
-French coop or reactor for the respect of the TNP

Strategically:
-Australia conserve an effective solution until the first SSN
-They dont break the TNP
-They can have their SSN
-They dont fuckoff the relation between her and France, but also the EU.
-Industrially, it can be a big win from the SSK to the SSN.

But well, I imagine its better to not have anything and totally messed up your relations with your “ally”.

I can tell you from experience of living in Australia for years that France as an Australian ally doesn’t even rate on the same planet as their alliance with the US. And the UK still has strong partnerships with the Australian armed forces and is a traditional friend of great standing. France as usual is overstating itself – doubly so when it tries ingratiating itself to China and influenced the EU to block AZ vaccine supplies to Australia and even neighbouring PNG. Seems the Aussie govt gave some payback.

What, France cannot standoff with the US ?
I think you make an unbelievable discovery, you probably need to tell this new truth to the world…

Really ?

“France as usual is overstating itself”
It’s not about overstating or anything…

Why do you think alliance is France OR US/UK ?
I will tell you a simple truth, you can have all… yes its true!

If for you France overstated herself, I think you underestimate the weight of France…

Australia and France can be allies, just Aus won’t be using French submarines and the US and UK are higher up the pecking order due to 5-Eyes and now AUKUS.

Uk uses starstreak. A fast missile that has 3 laser guided darts. It probably needs an update sometime but it’s meant to be good. It’s mounted on Alvis stormer? (Can’t remember exactly). Also comes in a 3 round launcher or single tube.
There is also rapier but that’s getting replaced by caam, sky sabre.
The submarine deal is a bit of a mess.
I think Australia may have to get a few ssk, if the colins life can’t be stretched enough,
The time scales are massive. When u look at how long it took to get uss nautilus in service I can help but think things could be going faster. All the tech is available,
Nuclear Crew trading could be done in 2-3 years.
Either copy build virgina class boats or take astute and either restart reactor production or modify boat for pw3.
I know this is a very simplistic way of describing things but surely 19 years is far to long to get a nuclear boat.
US nuclear programme from start did a massive amount in 19 years, 42 for freedom boats etc etc. All done within 19 years. And the tech is already available. It’s a case of will and money.

Starstreak is being updated – they are getting the LMM/Martlet/Fury duel purpose missile from the same launcher – so it has now C-UAS, ground target as well as SHORAD capability.

Wrong. I know from from friends in Australia where the problems with the French programme have been ongoing for years and that on the last visit of the Australian PM to France he warned Macron that the project would be cancelled if progress was made. The French failed to do so, and Australia turned to USA and U.K. instead.

‘The EU is literally passive…’ Really?

So why does France threaten to cut power to a small island due to French fishing boats who cannot supply the required documents to fish in UK waters? They also then threaten to prevent British registered boats from entering French ports because of the same French issue?

For Jersey it was not the french GVT.

The threat coming from Macron about electricity contracts was not for Jersey and was not really clear.

In all cases, you know our politicians (Your and mine) are not really the most wise people on this planet…

It’s boring to read always the same thing:

The biggest problem of the UK <-> EU and brexit can be simply seen here:

http://brexit.hypotheses.org/files/2018/02/Capture-d%E2%80%99e%CC%81cran-2018-02-15-a%CC%80-13.58.10.png

No one want to punish the UK except the UK itself, play the victim doesnt make you being a victim.

If you cant understand what this pic tells you, I cant do anything for you… except being sad for you not being able to understand your country and the situation.

There is no point crying over spilt milk. Brexit is done, whether its good or bad, its what the people voted for and we need to get on with it. Our relationship with France is strong and long-lived, and in defence we are the only two nations within Europe that can project power globally. We reamin two great nations, the global pioneers and advocates for plural, democratic governance. We stand together for all that is good in this world, for freedom and justice, and we need to remember that when gigantic autocracies like Russia and China threaten the world we have built together. Allez.

Em, only just over half of people who voted actually said to leave. The rest said stay. What’s done is done tho.
We will always be close to the countries in Europe it’s geographically impossible to move away from them. With our locations and shared values etc we will more often than not share the same values and goals

I hope we do go for a no deal BREXIT with the EU as we would be free of their nonsense. We now trade more globally then we do with the EU. It would be the EU’s loss. Please do not pretend to understand the UK better then a British national.

Hi Alex, I think these kms quoted here are being welk under played. Happy to be proven wrong of right on this!

If you get 40km from a 99kg CAMM how much you can get from a 300kg SAM? No one considers CAMM an area missile, neither even CAMM-ER.