UK Defence Forum

I think it was only weeks ago when the Italian order for the CAMM-ER was confirmed.

Here's Raytheon text for AMRAAM-ER; test launch in Norway has confirmed integrability with all other components that make up the NASAMS system (soon to get the Saab radar as an option as the Ozzies are funding it for their purchase):

"The new weapon's maximum range is 50 percent longer than the standard version, and its maximum altitude is 70 percent higher, thanks to enhancements including an enlarged rocket motor.

The new variant combines the standard AMRAAM missile – a fixture in the arsenal of 37 militaries – with the rocket motor of the ESSM®, or Evolved Sea Sparrow, guided missile. The integration means that the AMRAAM-ER missile, when used in a surface-to-air configuration, has a dramatically longer reach."

Now calculators out: how does it compare with CAMM-ER (then the how much & how many contributers can ask their std question).

MRTT news

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rs-441497/

I wonder if our planned boom/receptacle aircraft will carry out any AAR training with these NATO assets.

Norway has completed a successful verification of the F-35A drag chute system at Ørland Air Force Base. The chute — unique to the Norwegian aircraft — is housed under a small fairing on the upper rear fuselage between the vertical tails.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/success ... ed-norway/

Smokey wrote:MRTT news

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rs-441497/

The tankers are much needed for better dispersal of Norway's F-35 fleet; the country's intelligence service reported simulated air attacks against both the Tromso airbase (not many of them that far up North) and the Vardo long-range radar station:
https://www.nrk.no/norge/_-russland-sim ... 1.13946450

Quite an exercise coming up in late summer, Norway reinforced to the tune of 35k troops and 70 ships, under the 4th Battle of Atlantic scenario
https://forsvaret.no/ifs/admiral-foggo- ... t-juncture

Sad, but it is good that they have 5 ships, but crews only for 4-5.
- room for growth. Or added resilience, as this case shows.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sad, but it is good that they have 5 ships, but crews only for 4-5.
- room for growth. Or added resilience, as this case shows.

Then the RN is definitly resilient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_8EIcjUsyc

Had missed this, part of the drive to increase defence spending and at the same time streamline to make F-35 & the subs programme expenditures sustainable:
" The Coastal Ranger Command near Harstad will be disbanded and personnel redistributed to Navy and Army units."
- no further detail on the 2016 decision
- in Sweden they have BasSek (base security, a bit like RAF Rgmnt) and Amph. Rgmnt (mobile, can be used offensively)
- in Finland they have the same two (Marine Infantry for defence; Coastal Jaegers for mobile, offensive ops) plus Marine Recon (not meant to fight, but to be in the right place, at the right time to target all available assets, incl. coastal defence missiles)

Damned shame, wonder if they will be able to salvage her or if they'll just write her off. Watching the video with the tugs, I'm really hoping it wasn't the case that she was fetched up and the tugs pushing her off caused her to the capsize.

I read earlier that the ship's captain deliberately beached her to stop her going under. Probably saved quite a few of his crew.

Looking at the video with the tugs they appear to have made the situation far worse.

Dahedd wrote:Looking at the video with the tugs they appear to have made the situation far worse.

To me it looks like the smaller ones are trying to turn/ release her, while the bigger tugs are pulling, to keep her upright
- probably wrong (interpretation) as they all so instantly distance themselves?

We hope it has a different ending to the KNM Oslo frigate.

For this much money, 19 bn (anyone's guess which FX to use as deliveries ran over a long period) kroner,
they got this much ship (indeed 5 of them... why does that ring a bell? These are not lighter frigates, though):
Length: 134 meters
Displacement: 5300 tons
Top speed: over 26 knots
Engine power: over 40,000 hp
Range: 4,500 nautical miles
Crew: 127

Of the associated costs helicopters, the new Naval Strike Missile and lightweight torpedoes were funded outside the frigate project.
-- New anti-surface naval strike missile (NSM)
-- Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) air-defence missile
--76 mm Oto Breda gun (anti-surface and -air)
--Stingray torpedo (anti-submarine)
-- NH 90 helicopter (with Stingray torpedo)

The radar is more capable than what ESSM can make use of and there is an upgrade project for the missile fit on the go; have not seen the details nor the cost.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Dahedd wrote:Looking at the video with the tugs they appear to have made the situation far worse.

To me it looks like the smaller ones are trying to turn/ release her, while the bigger tugs are pulling, to keep her upright
- probably wrong (interpretation) as they all so instantly distance themselves?

Plugging into brain trusts elsewhere, there's some speculation they might have been trying to shove her further onto the bar, presumably because they feared the flooding or tide would drag her off it, and in the process the bar partially collapsed causing her to roll over. Not a bad theory, but we'll have to see.

Dahedd wrote: Looking at the video with the tugs they appear to have made the situation far worse.

Agreed.

Even shipping has turned into a secretive business (Sola TS is one of these):
"Athens-based shipping company Tsakos Energy Navigation (TEN) has taken delivery of the eighth in a series of nine tankers built against long-term employment to an undisclosed European oil firm.

The vessel in question is the 112,700 dwt aframax tanker Stavanger TS, which is one of four ships from this order with ice-class specifications. Built by Romania-based Daewoo-Mangalia, the tanker has a capacity of 123,933 m3. It features a length pf 249 meters and a width of 44 meters.

chinook88 wrote:
We hope it has a different ending to the KNM Oslo frigate.

Looks like more than 3 sections are flooded. Even if the water-tight doors were closed, may be she cannot float.

Very sad issue. Is the reason of the collision became clear?

This is the third "tanker/bulk cargo ship ramming escorts", within a few years. There might be a flaw in navy side, which is handling a ship more agile than the large tanker. If true, are they just a chance coincidence, or some of the training system is not working well?

donald_of_tokyo wrote: There might be a flaw in navy side, which is handling a ship more agile than the large tanker.

Wasn't this one alongside? There has been speculation that the Asia occurrences were about "practicing" EW, ie. remotely taking control. Evidenced (at least once) by a "shadow" that after trailing, just before the collision turned abruptly away.
... well, the details are on the interwebs, and who can say what is idle speculation and what amounts to some evidence

"Naval officers at the Norway’s Haakonverns base in Bergen where the Helge Ingstad was heading firmly refused, at a press conference Thursday afternoon, to offer any information about how the collision could have occurred. Since it wasn’t visible on Marine Traffic’s system, it’s possible the tanker couldn’t see the frigate on its radar either."

https://www.newsinenglish.no/2018/11/08 ... ate-crash/

--

Could there be a possibility that the stealth design made detection by the commercial radar of the tanker difficult?.
I guess in that case a small radar reflector would help.

Regardless of the above, unless terrain was blocking sensors the Frigate should have seen the Tanker.

Lord Jim wrote:Regardless of the above, unless terrain was blocking sensors the Frigate should have seen the Tanker.

Yep.
Also, stealth isn't invisibility, particularly on such ranges where ship collisions are happening...