www.navalnews.com
www.navalnews.com
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.naval-technology.com
These images seem to be from MDBA intended for a Polish audience, hence the use of Zubr, Rosomak, and Boxer. Blurb I've seen mentioned the idea of an extended range missile with radio-frequency/semi-active laser or electro-optic/infrared guidance with parts potentially coming from Brimstone, Spear, CAMM etc.
That's my understanding too. Though I think British Army has some interest in this.
generaldynamics.uk.com
www.army-technology.com
www.defensenews.com
www.army-technology.com
And Singapore as well apparently
I posted about it a while ago in an unrelated thread, and the potential uses/implications. It would be a gamechanger in so many ways (although some of the uses I came up with were before it came out that it was a slightly higher diameter than CAMM, that might not matter much though..)
www.edrmagazine.eu
www.defensenews.com
So if we take a look over at Tempest Weapon development options two particular missiles stick outI posted about it a while ago in an unrelated thread, and the potential uses/implications. It would be a gamechanger in so many ways (although some of the uses I came up with were before it came out that it was a slightly higher diameter than CAMM, that might not matter much though..)
It was a model and CGI shown at DVD 2018. Images in the MBDA Tweet below. The missile shown looks like CAMM but is actually a wider diameter. CAMM/ASRAAM is 166mm, this missile is the same diameter as Brimstone/Spear at 178mm (so no expensive repackaging of the seeker head). The images that MBDA published had a Dual Mode Brimstone seeker head on one missile, and another missile had a E/O seeker head......the other image is a green painted Meteor...they didn't talk about that apparently...
View: https://twitter.com/byMBDA/status/1042453708011921408
Nicholas Drummond got some good images of the models when he was there, and spoke to MBDA about performance. They said at least 40km range. But I think thats massively understating it. MBDA have said to Janes that CAMM can reach 60km (would need a very co-operative target by that range though..) so if the wider body meant a larger motor, possibly a slower, longer burning one as well, there is no reason that a ground launched missile couldn't reach 60km, and possibly 80km...
View: https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1136331001557331969
Further details in EDR Magazine
MBDA Future Land Indirect Fires - EDR Magazine
By David Oliver MBDA exhibited new concepts for Army precision effects at the Defence Vehicle Dynamics (DVD) exhibition at Millbrook
Well if it's dual mode, presumably that's even better giving flexibility.
Couple of points:
The larger bore ASRAAM lookalike that MBDA showed alongside the Tempest mockup was apparently Dual Mode (RF and IR guided), the smaller missiles were IR only but designed to maximise internal carriage numbers.
RAF and MBDA have already talked about Meteor (at DSEi 2019, possibly in its AESA equipped JNAAM version) having ARM capability. MBDA also showed a Meteor-alike in its Twister concept for dealing with manoevering hypersonic missiles.
For me the most interesting missile was the micro missile for self defence of aircraft against enemy missiles. There was also a ground attack variant... Potential for use as a new MANPAD, or as part for a Naval CIWS system as well...
www.telegraph.co.uk
Any chance of a summary for those who can't get past the paywall?RAF lost £600,000 missile system in jet test blunder
FOI request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000
Any chance of a summary for those who can't get past the paywall?RAF lost £600,000 missile system in jet test blunder
FOI request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000
Any chance of a summary for those who can't get past the paywall?RAF lost £600,000 missile system in jet test blunder
FOI request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000
A freedom of information request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000. Officials said the sonar system, known as a flank array, had been trailing behind a submarine when it was lost at sea.
Hopefully the sonar was just plain lost and not acquired by someone else.........
Any chance of a summary for those who can't get past the paywall?RAF lost £600,000 missile system in jet test blunder
FOI request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000
A freedom of information request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000. Officials said the sonar system, known as a flank array, had been trailing behind a submarine when it was lost at sea.
Hopefully the sonar was just plain lost and not acquired by someone else.........
Cheers PMN1!
I think flank arrays are not supposed to detach from the hull at all, so some kind of mechanical failure/impact may have been involved.
Yeah, it's the Telegraph. They're not much better than the Daily Fail.
The term Net-Zero Carbon is meaningless. It doesn't mean that they'll do away with gas turbines in combat aircraft, it means they'll try to compensate for the aircraft's carbon emissions (using some very optimistic calculations) by planting a forest or using carbon capture.British military aircraft must hit net-zero carbon target by 2040, says Air Force chief
“That will require additional investment. It will require me diverting investment from equipment and platforms into infrastructure and into how we operate,” says Air Chief Marshal Mike Wigston.
[Groans]
Any chance of a summary for those who can't get past the paywall?RAF lost £600,000 missile system in jet test blunder
FOI request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000
A freedom of information request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000. Officials said the sonar system, known as a flank array, had been trailing behind a submarine when it was lost at sea.
Hopefully the sonar was just plain lost and not acquired by someone else.........
Cheers PMN1!
I think flank arrays are not supposed to detach from the hull at all, so some kind of mechanical failure/impact may have been involved.
I feel like there must be an error somewhere -- flank arrays are bolted (or otherwise mounted) to the hull; they really can't "trail behind a submarine."
Towed arrays, on the other hand, are meant to stream behind the sub and are sometimes (rarely) lost in accidents. It's honestly a cost of doing business for modern subs.
I'd want to see the actual text of the response to see whether the MoD or the newspaper screwed this up. My money is on the newspaper, since they also seem to think a targeting pod is a "missile system" and that falling off the pylon of a stationary aircraft is the same as "plunging." (Also, man, I don't want to be the last troop who inspected the mounting on that pod. That's a grade-A f-up right there.)
Your wingtip was just too far away from the other wall....Any chance of a summary for those who can't get past the paywall?RAF lost £600,000 missile system in jet test blunder
FOI request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000
A freedom of information request also revealed that in the same financial year the Royal Navy lost sonar equipment worth £792,000. Officials said the sonar system, known as a flank array, had been trailing behind a submarine when it was lost at sea.
Hopefully the sonar was just plain lost and not acquired by someone else.........
Cheers PMN1!
I think flank arrays are not supposed to detach from the hull at all, so some kind of mechanical failure/impact may have been involved.
I feel like there must be an error somewhere -- flank arrays are bolted (or otherwise mounted) to the hull; they really can't "trail behind a submarine."
Towed arrays, on the other hand, are meant to stream behind the sub and are sometimes (rarely) lost in accidents. It's honestly a cost of doing business for modern subs.
I'd want to see the actual text of the response to see whether the MoD or the newspaper screwed this up. My money is on the newspaper, since they also seem to think a targeting pod is a "missile system" and that falling off the pylon of a stationary aircraft is the same as "plunging." (Also, man, I don't want to be the last troop who inspected the mounting on that pod. That's a grade-A f-up right there.)
With experience on fast jets, I'm kind of doubting the truth on the pod - its mounted about 60-80 cm above the ground, so even if it 'dropped' off, while parked, it wouldnt be a write off.
Now not correctly mounting it, and have it 'drop-off' at 90 mph on the runway - would be a write off...I dont think anyone would dare to have lost it airborne, and claimed it just dropped off..... or would they.......
Take your pick.
And yes at least 2 people will have checked that pod on fitting it, and the groundcrew on the day, and the aircrew on the day.......so at least 5 people.....
Reminds me of the day we stuck a wingtip into the hangar wall, the hangar wall won... I was on the OTHER wingtip, I still got a b***cking from our grumpy old WO.
British Royal Air Force invests in space capabilities
The head of the Royal Air Force discusses the Ministry of Defence's goals in space.www.c4isrnet.com
I hope those non governmental hackers in russia cant get into them
www.defensenews.com
www.defensenews.com
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.defensenews.com
They'd need to get their shoes on - Fort Victoria is the only ship in the RFA fleet capable of provisioning the QE Carriers at sea, so any problems with the Fort and Carrier Strike is severely limited.From three days ago:
Britain launches $2.3B logistics ship competition — again
Britain has relaunched a competition to build three logistic ships to support the deployments of Royal Navy aircraft carriers and other surface ships.
