The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[citizen578]

This is not a valid interpretation of the posts in the Falklands Island thread. There was robust discussion on the validity of British assumptions. You may not agree with the posts but it is definitely not anti-British.

BTW, I love the Type 45.

I was being hyperbolic, however, anyone can read it for themselves:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4468

Debates don't really work when one side inventes capabilities which don't exist, and are unlikely to exist for decades if ever.
Many of the most dishonourable posts have understandably been deleted by the mods.

 

[ASFC]

The RN escorts in the Falklands combined with their well trained crews proved extremely resilient, not one crippled ship went down in less than 12-hours, compare that to the Belgrano (heavily armoured WWII cruiser), it slipped beneath the waves in pretty damn quick time.

Ahem...the Coventry went down pretty damn quick aswell!

And to be fair to the Belgrano, not only did it have a hole blown in its side, but it had its bow blown off as well-even with a well trained crew it would have still probably gone down!

 

[Grim901]

Ahem...the Coventry went down pretty damn quick aswell!

And to be fair to the Belgrano, not only did it have a hole blown in its side, but it had its bow blown off as well-even with a well trained crew it would have still probably gone down!

Belgrano is still to this day the only proof of how potent an SSN can be against ships, right?

And was Coventry not the sole AAW on duty at the time she sunk due to the damage to Glasgow and the destruction of Sheffield? It actually took over a day to sink (she capsized pretty quickly though) after taking 2 direct hits. And up until that point she had been doing a superb job.

 

[ASFC]

Yes...and that good old fashioned straight running torpedos dating from before WW2 are still potent anti-ship weapons in well trained hands!

 

[riksavage]

The Falklands was a steep learning curve not just for the RN, but most NATO Navies. One of the post-briefs given by a senior UK RN officer concluded that they had assumed too much from missile defense systems at the expense of good old fashioned AA. Hence the fitting of Phalanx to all RN vessels post 82. I'm a great fan of keeping a Gatling gun based inner layer defence system, or better a gun/missile combination using hypersonic missiles, impervious to jamming (Starstreak for example).

Also in 82, as far as I'm aware, there was no electronic 'friend or foe' identification system in place, which meant that RN CAP patrols had to operate outside a predefined box around the fleet. Anything entering the box was considered hostile (bar helo's), which was why there are so few images of Harriers chasing Argentine Jets on their final bombing runs. Once in the box it was left to Sea Dart/Cat, SeaWolf, Rapier shore batteries and ground fire.

Going back to the RN in 82, it would be interesting to hear what other European Navies had as part of their AAW defences prior to the conflict. Was Phalanx / Goalkeeper popular at the time?

 

[Tony Williams]

The RN only fitted Phalanx or Goalkeeper to some ships post-1982. They were retrofitted to the carrier and Type 42 designs, and fitted to the final batch of Type 22s. The next frigate design to appear after that, the Type 23, has no anti-missile gun system - it relies on Sea Wolf. Neither does the new Type 45 - that relies on Aster.

What the RN did do is acquire a lot of new 20mm and especially 30mm Oerlikon guns in manually-aimed mountings to replace the old WW2-era 20mm Oerlikons and 40mm Bofors. The 30mm single mounting has just emerged in a new remote-controlled mounting with a new (ATK MK44) gun, but it's not for anti-missile or even anti-aircraft use (rate of fire is too low) but primarily for zapping small boats.

The RN also realised that all warships need a general-purpose capability which means packing a medium-calibre gun. So the last batch of Type 22s, plus the Type 23s (then on the drawing board), were redesigned to carry the 4.5 inch Mk 8.

Another sharp-end lesson learned in the Falklands was the importance of AEW aircraft for the carriers. Sea Kings were fitted with Searchwater radar in one heck of a rush but didn't quite get there in time (they're still in service today).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[ASFC]

. Neither does the new Type 45 - that relies on Aster.

Yes but it can quite clearly take two Phalanx mountings-and I bet the first time it goes anywhere vaguely hostile it will be shipped out carrying them.

 

[windscorpion]

Won't there be Phalanx available to fit to T45s from withdrawn T42s? Surely they would fit a gun based CIWS, they learn from history right? :

 

[Tony Williams]

Won't there be Phalanx available to fit to T45s from withdrawn T42s? Surely they would fit a gun based CIWS, they learn from history right? :

The lessons of history get rapidly eroded by successive budget reviews

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[Grim901]

Actually the Type 45 is Phalanx capable and last I heard is still going to be fitted.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_DDG_Type_45_Cutaway_lg.jpg

That shows Daring with a Phalanx clearly visible amidships.

And the 30mm automatic guns can be used in the AA role, it's something several European navies have been experimenting with in recent years, using larger calibres in the AAW role.

I think it's good to have a last ditsh weapon like phalanx on hand, I hope they combine it with CAMM when it comes into service for point defence.

 

[Tony Williams]

Actually the Type 45 is Phalanx capable and last I heard is still going to be fitted.

Any warship is "Phalanx capable"; all you need is a bit of deck space capable of taking the 6 ton weight to bolt it to. The Israelis even fit them to fast patrol boats.

The Darings will be fitted "for but not with" Phalanx. This is one of the MoD's favourite phrases, along with "up to" as in "up to 12 Darings will be built", as these don't actually commit them to anything.

And the 30mm automatic guns can be used in the AA role, it's something several European navies have been experimenting with in recent years, using larger calibres in the AAW role.

The Oerlikon KCB cannon which the RN has used since the 1980s fires at 600-650 rounds per minute, which is fast enough to be of some use against aircraft (especially in the twin mounting). However, the new version of the DSB30 single mounting, which is replacing the old ones, uses the ATK MK44 gun, a member of the "Bushmaster" Chain Gun family. This fires at only 200 rpm; enough against boats and maybe helos but far too slow against strike planes.

In contrast, the German navy has adopted the MLG 27 as their equivalent remote-controlled gun. This uses the 27mm Mauser BK 27 aircraft gun which fires at no less than 1,700 rpm. That definitely has AA potential (depending on the FCS, as always).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[kato]

That definitely has AA potential (depending on the FCS, as always).

The FCS, at least the version i've seen, does not really support firing at anything faster than a helicopter - technically, the FCS requires laser ranging for every fire solution. It's only wired for and used with a single ammunition type, frangible armor piercing discarding sabot (FAPDS). The aircraft-mounted BK27 also has HE, AP, APHE and SAPHE available, typically using HE for air-to-air. The quad 27mm Drakon CIWS was also supposed to use another proprietary fin-stabilized ammunition type.

 

[Tony Williams]

FAPDS is actually a pretty good general-purpose round against lots of different targets (including aircraft). It has the advantage of better ballistics than the usual HE round, so a better chance of hitting fleeting targets. But if the FCS isn't set up for dealing with fast targets, that's that...

The APDSFS for Drakon was rather impressive, but that of course was optimised for anti-missile work. I have one of the projectiles in my collection.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[Vivendi]

Any The Oerlikon KCB cannon which the RN has used since the 1980s fires at 600-650 rounds per minute, which is fast enough to be of some use against aircraft (especially in the twin mounting). However, the new version of the DSB30 single mounting, which is replacing the old ones, uses the ATK MK44 gun, a member of the "Bushmaster" Chain Gun family. This fires at only 200 rpm; enough against boats and maybe helos but far too slow against strike planes.

In contrast, the German navy has adopted the MLG 27 as their equivalent remote-controlled gun. This uses the 27mm Mauser BK 27 aircraft gun which fires at no less than 1,700 rpm. That definitely has AA potential (depending on the FCS, as always).

Tony, thanks for a lot of useful info!

I have a question that may be a bit OT, (and please bear with me, I'm an "enthusiast" but complete non-expert) I was wondering what your view is on the Otobreda 76 mm super rapid (120 rounds pr minute) when using the Strales system with DART guided ammunition; the vendor claims it would take no more than 3 shots to kill an incoming missile.

My understanding is that it will have a longer range than the typical CIWS, and the guided projectile may compensate for the much lower firing rate?

V

 

[Tony Williams]

It sounds like a good idea; 20-30mm gun CIWS will struggle to shoot down a supersonic missile in time due to their short range. I have some reservations, though. The DART missile is slender and can't contain much HE, so to destroy a missile it will need to be exploded very close. That will not be an easy task for guidance - and especially proximity fuzing - systems, with closing velocities in the region of Mach 5 (1,500m per second).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[jaffo4011]

IIRC your navy's Stanflex patrollers have Mk48 mod0 for VLS Sea Sparrow right ? I think the cheapest solution is like on the Doorman or on the Canadian Halifax, ie VLS tubes on the side of the main superstructure.

Though leaving this aside one minute, Sea Wolf is a point defence system with a range inferior to RAM... not even remotely comparable to ESSM (18+ km) or Aster 15 (30km). Of course, better than nothing, but disappointing for a navy such as the Royal Navy !

cheers

i really dont care about seawolfs range as long as it does its job and shoots down missiles......its one of the few systems to have actually been proven in combat(albeit in a early version)in the falklands.

i'd sleep fairly easily if my son was serving on a warship with seawolf as point defence along with a goal keeper system....

 

[Systems Adict]

Any warship is "Phalanx capable"; all you need is a bit of deck space capable of taking the 6 ton weight to bolt it to. The Israelis even fit them to fast patrol boats.

Slight correction, ANY ship that has a chilled water supply, space to store the ammo & enough capability in it's electrical supply.

The Darings will be fitted "for but not with" Phalanx. This is one of the MoD's favorite phrases, along with "up to" as in "up to 12 Darings will be built", as these don't actually commit them to anything.

#1. The Darings ARE, (not will be) FBNW.

#2. FBNW, is a bit of an odd statement, but roughly translates thus:

The equipment can be fitted in a relatively short time, as power connections/electrical cabling, seat / bolting arrgts, air supply, or generally any service that is required for the kit to work is there, where the equipment will be fitted.

In the case of Phalanx on T45, that equates to between 24 - 48 hrs to fit & test before deploying.

Not to be sniffed at & definitely not a porkie pie !

The Oerlikon KCB cannon which the RN has used since the 1980s fires at 600-650 rounds per minute, which is fast enough to be of some use against aircraft (especially in the twin mounting). However, the new version of the DSB30 single mounting, which is replacing the old ones, uses the ATK MK44 gun, a member of the "Bushmaster" Chain Gun family. This fires at only 200 rpm; enough against boats and maybe helos but far too slow against strike planes.

I don't doubt ANY of your facts WRT rate of fire, it's actually refreshing to have someone with knowledge, quoting accurate facts, rather than relying on info from Wiki, BUT....

I'd counter the Bushmaster RoF not being "adequate" to kill a missile / aircraft.

The reason I'd counter this is that there are so many "factors" which can affect how well a shoot goes.


For instance, ambient temperature, sea state, wind speed & direction, barometric pressure, temperature of the ammo, no. of rounds that have been fired thru the barrel, accuracy / alignment figures / accuracy of the sensor & its relation to the to the seat for the equipment, the predictor being used to correlate the figures, etc, etc.The list does go on & on...


On most days, one of these "factors" can be off slightly & not affect the end result, but of course there is always a time when say the amount of cloud in the atmosphere, the reflection from the sun, ambient temperature & wind speed, as well as the barrel wear curve will all fight against you, screwing up the end result.

What am I getting at ?

I've been on sea trials on several different vessels & as an ops room operator, have seen how accurate the DSB30 mount (in AA mode), is against a mid to high, subsonic towed target. (anywhere between 450 & 600 Kt with 2 shots thru a tube approx 6-10 ft long, 8-10 inches in diameter effectively "killing" an inbound missile !).


Yes, several factors have to be such that you can reliably "attack" a target, such as being able to track it as far out from the ship as you can, so that you a solid track to line the weapons & other sensors across the ship on to, giving you wiggle room to get everything right, so you can activate the weapon in auto mode, at it's max range, then open fire at the guns optimum kill distance.

Not exactly what happens in the heat of battle, but proves consistently that it can be done.

In contrast, the German navy has adopted the MLG 27 as their equivalent remote-controlled gun. This uses the 27mm Mauser BK 27 aircraft gun which fires at no less than 1,700 rpm. That definitely has AA potential (depending on the FCS, as always).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

I appreciate that the Germans do what the Germans do, which is usually efficient & suits their needs. However, WRT FSC, I'll steal a bit of Mr Brown's speech that caused such a furore recently & doctor it to my own ends...

"British Companies to do work on British Naval vessels".

The current climate & the way the UK MoD / Govt have shaped & organised the shipbuilding & defence Industry over the last 10 years mean that like it or lump, BAE is the supplier of choice. They have plenty of "toys" that our armed forces want, so why go for German gun, when the Bofors (sorry) BAE 57mm Mk110 Mod 0, with its 60 round onboard magazine & max ROF of 220 rounds will probably fit the bill, both financially & physically.


SA

 

[Sea Toby]

Phalanx was developed after the 1973 Israel-Egypt war, to counter sea skimming missiles. Phalanx production started in 1978 with orders for 23 USN and 14 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) systems. Phalanx entered the US fleet during 1978.

I believe the Dutch Goalkeeper were developed a bit later and didn't enter any fleet until the early 80s.

So by 1982 CIWS did exist. Unfortunately, the British did not order any until after the Falklands War lessons were learned.

As I recall events, the Illustrious was completed several months early and when she sailed south to replace the Invincible, she carried two Phalanx CIWS.

 

[Tony Williams]

I'd counter the Bushmaster RoF not being "adequate" to kill a missile / aircraft.

The reason I'd counter this is that there are so many "factors" which can affect how well a shoot goes.

I don't disagree with any of that. Issues such as the quality of the FCS, the precision and speed of response of the gun mounting, and the accuracy of the gun are all very important. But assuming that these are all equal, if you're serious about hitting aircraft, let alone missiles, you'll chose a high-RoF gun because that maximises the probability of a kill. The fact that the RN has deliberately chosen a low-RF gun shows that these roles don't really feature in its priorities.

Anyway, to deal with missiles you need an automated system like Phalanx and Goalkeeper: the speed of response required to swat an incoming anti-ship missile (even subsonic, let alone supersonic) is just too high to rely on manual intervention.

The current climate & the way the UK MoD / Govt have shaped & organised the shipbuilding & defence Industry over the last 10 years mean that like it or lump, BAE is the supplier of choice. They have plenty of "toys" that our armed forces want, so why go for German gun, when the Bofors (sorry) BAE 57mm Mk110 Mod 0, with its 60 round onboard magazine & max ROF of 220 rounds will probably fit the bill, both financially & physically.

I wasn't saying that we should have bought the MLG 27, just pointing out that, with over eight times the rate of fire of the MK44, it offers extra possibilities (although it doesn't sound as if the Germans are exploiting them). Anyway, the MK44 we have bought is from ATK which is an American rival to BAE.

I like the 57mm Bofors because of its flexibility, but it has a lot more ship impact than the small-calibre weapons we've been discussing. The visible mounting weight of around 6 tons is in the same class as a CIWS, but the magazine arrangements use up a lot of under-deck volume.

Incidentally, I can tell you a funny story I heard about the purchase of the MK44. One of the arguments used in favour of the purchase was that money could be saved by using up the stocks of 30mm Oerlikon ammo which would become surplus to requirements as the Oerlikons were replaced. The only problem is that the Oerlikon uses 30x170 ammo, the MK44 uses 30x173 which has a different shape and is definitely not interchangeable. It seems that someone misread ATK's publicity which does say that the MK44 could fire Oerlikon ammo - but it needs a new barrel to do so! The RN does have 30x173 ammo in service (it's used in the Goalkeeper) but that isn't surplus...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[Systems Adict]

I don't disagree with any of that. Issues such as the quality of the FCS, the precision and speed of response of the gun mounting, and the accuracy of the gun are all very important. But assuming that these are all equal, if you're serious about hitting aircraft, let alone missiles, you'll chose a high-RoF gun because that maximises the probability of a kill.

The fact that the RN has deliberately chosen a low-RF gun shows that these roles don't really feature in its priorities.

Anyway, to deal with missiles you need an automated system like Phalanx and Goalkeeper: the speed of response required to swat an incoming anti-ship missile (even subsonic, let alone supersonic) is just too high to rely on manual intervention.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

Thanxs for the reply !


I can, in respect, agree with ALL the comments you made (as I'm relatively sure your knowledge is better than mine), but still feel that the one above isn't quite right.

I've boldened a piece of text in your comments & would ask if you could expand your thoughts on this, but for the moment, here's mine.




In the design phase of any naval contract, there's a 2 way dialogue, that can go on for months, or even years! Most of the time, the shipbuilder is restricted in how he can do things, by the customer placing certain requirements on him.

For example, The customer can say that the ship must achieve 40 kts, be able to cover 7,000 miles on a tank of fuel, weigh no more than 3,000 GRT & have a particular Gun / Missile / Radar / Weapons system.

You get the idea...

From my personal opinion (& not that of any company I am, or have ever worked for), I think that there's been a comprimise of sorts, in that the RN / UK MoD have specified the guns, for 2 reasons.

#1. Commonality of spares with equipment fitted elsewhere in the fleet. (common sense & practical)

#2. Knowledge that the designer (BAE) has a system, or can produce a system which can utilise the guns in AA mode, with a high degree of accuracy.

Now, I do understand the marked difference in RoF your speaking about (as obviously the gatling style guns that are fitted to Phalanx & Golakeeper both spew out over 600 RPM in comparrison to the DSB30).

I feel, however, that in some respects the RN remembers it's recent history & experience from it's little trip "down South".

Following that excursion many things changed, including the introduction of a pair of 30MM guns to most Frigates.

So with this in mind & that fact that the Command system that's fitted to T45 is based on BAE's "Nautis 2" system that it used in both the OPV's & Frigates for Brunei & Malaysia, it provides an "additional fallback".

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lekiu/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nakhoda/


The command system, amongst it's multitude of tasks & operations, has been designed to use the guns for both Surface & AA, as they can be manually operated, or put into an Automatic (remotely operated) mode.

It's in this remote mode where the Fire Control System (FCS), will probably make the difference, especially if it's "hooked up" (in the form of tracking data / information), from the Sampson or Thales 'Smart L' Radars.

It will also work well with the Ultra Electronics EOGCS (which is designed to be the primary sensor for these guns).

But not being in the thick of that "Engineering knowledge path", I can only speculate WRT to the interoperability / data inputs from other sensors.

Obviously with T45, Phalanx is the preferred CIWS for anti-missile self protection, but as many people will testify, during the period in 1982 when our task force was under attack from A4 Skyhawks in San Carlos Water, anybody who could shoot, ran to the upper deck with everything from pistols to GPMGs, aimed at the sky & fired as many rounds as they could.

It wasn't pretty, it caused a whole lot of damage to the ships (from mis aimed rounds & exuberance while under fire), but it did it's job by scaring the hell out of the Argie Pilots, helping to protect the fleet.


SA