The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

OK. We have a little problem with Harpoon here. I agree that at the moment, the RN probably doesn't need a ship-launched anti-ship missile like Harpoon. BUT - I do not think that was true when we bought Exocet & Harpoon, & I'm getting frustrated by your failure to acknowledge this argument.

Times change. The RN back then had to face the prospect of large numbers of Soviet warships much larger than FACs, Soviet bombers (both carrying heavy anti-ship missiles), & naval air being extremely busy. SAMs had to be reserved for shooting down aircraft & missiles, & weapons were needed against all those Soviet surface ships, lest they be encountered when no air support or friendly submarines were available.

Would you care to reply to the above?

Sheffield might have been put our of action, but certainly not sunk, if she had not burned - and the fire consumed her only because it was such a lucky shot.

USS Worden was hit by two ARMs. She then proceeded under her own power to port, was repaired in 10 days, & then returned to duty. I don't think that proves that small warheads can sink major warships, or even disable them unless they get a pretty lucky hit.

Yes, we agree on Absalon - and don't forget Esbern Snare.

Sorry I didn't say I completely agree with you on the fitting of Exocet in the 70/80s as with no carrier aircaft we had no way of destroying Soviet ships. For me the cancelling of the CVA01 was one of the lowest point in this counties naval history. The QE & PW a ray of light even though we face some nightmare challenges

However I think by the 90s we have Harriers with Sea Eagle and Lynx with Skua and the cold war is almost over, but I again agree I would probably have fitted Harpoon, but I would have still gone with a single Sea Dart based missile.

Anyway changing the subject how do you think the RN should responded to potential defence cuts, I don't think they will be 20% as per the Times but they are likely to be hard

 

[kato]

The USN is gradually moving away from them and relying on Standard. The warheads on SAMs are smaller but the hitting power/higher speed makes up and the targets are most likely FAC, where warhead size is not going to be an issue.

Standard in surface mode is just a stand-in for systems like NLOS - an expendable low-value-target missile for targets you don't waste the real thing on. Germany is adapting RAM for surface targets for the same reason, albeit with lower range. The range of Standard vs a surface target is even considerably less than NLOS in fact, while for a lot of such targets its 165 kg warhead (even if it's just a blast warhead) is actually already overkill.
With the implementation of these systems for the "mass targets", the high-value-target systems can be converted to something pricier than Harpoon, with better survivability, which in some navies can even be reduced to limited carrier systems such as aircraft.

 

[ASFC]

The Hawk 200 costs c12m and has the potential to be a light A10/A4 role. It is Relevant ot the RN thread as I was suggesting we use the development in the Goshawk to make a lightweight attack plane for the CVs to make up numbers for the F35 ( i suspect we will be lucky to get 80-90). The current trend in ground support is for smaller guided munitions so we don't need the vast carrying capacity of Tornado.

BTW the Typhoon is the Cold War warrior it just missed it by 20 years the Tornado (although again i would never have built) is a very capable bomber....don't be so ageist the B52 is still in service. The Tornados will go not because they are past it, just because we can't afford them.. (but that is for the RAF thread)

This amuses me-only the British press are too stupid to believe Typhoon is 'just' a Cold War Warrior . It is a multi-role combat aircraft-take a look at the FGR.4. Whereas the Tornado is, it even needed seperate variants to do different jobs, and the F.3 was never a true fighter, just an interceptor, built for the Cold War role of intercepting bombers. It also amuses me that an Army General is trying to tell the RAF how to run the Air Force. I'm sure in the past, in the RAF thread, the use of Super Tucanos was discussed and discounted due to speed, range, and loitering time issues.

Hawk 200/Goshawk only becomes relevant if the new Carriers get catapults and arrestor gear. As it stands, they aren't. Anyway, 80/90 F-35B would be enough to operate the Carriers in the intended way, one in use, one in refit/training.

If you had bothered to read the MOD link properly, you would see it was dated at June/July 2008, so even if it took 10 years (which it won't, 7 years to IOC is what is widely reported) CAMM would still enter service in 2018, what 5 years before the first T23 decommissioning, and a whole 18 years before the last (see the relevant section of Hansard for T23 OSD if you are interested). Given the troubles in recent years with 'equipment shortages' that the Govt have had, it would be an extremely dumb Govt to let a class of Frigates go on for another 20 odd years without doing something to upgrade them and keep them relatively 'current'.

Whilst alot of your ideas are interesting 1805, it would help if you could place them within the context of the real RN and what we know, i.e. what is published. As I said above, Goshawk is all very well and good, but you seem to overlook the fact that the QEs won't atm have catapults when they enter service.

These so called 'Defence Cuts' that the media is touting have to be put into context here. The Army, in my mind, are stirring. Why you ask? Because their future projects remain unfunded. I don't see FRES* being ordered at the moment or any future MBTs being designed. With the RNs pet projects ordered/funded, and the RAF on course to get most of what it wants, the Army is probably feeling left out, hence this General pushing for a thorough Defence Review, and for Britians Armed Forces to be orientated around counter-insurgency work (or in other words, Army-centric), to make sure they get the money they want, even if at the expense of the other two services, which I hope doesn't happen, as I think the RN in particular, can't take any more cuts.

Now my last paragraph was speculation/analysis from me, but I do just hope that the service chiefs don't do the treasuries bidding and help the treasury cut the defence budget by infighting.

*Incidently, if these UORs continue, it might die completely.

 

[Bonza]

Germany is adapting RAM for surface targets for the same reason, albeit with lower range. The range of Standard vs a surface target is even considerably less than NLOS in fact, while for a lot of such targets its 165 kg warhead (even if it's just a blast warhead) is actually already overkill.

For anyone interested, the following video has footage of the RAM engaging surface targets (most relevant footage is from 2:11 to 2:21):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvo7Mb9EwJY"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

That's interesting what you say about the Standard's range limitations in anti-surface mode, presumably that's due to the SARH guidance? If that's the case, will SM-6 extend surface-to-surface range by a significant amount? I suppose the capability increase may not be awe-inspiring in the age of NLOS-LS, armed drones and naval airpower, just curious.

 

[Padfoot]

on a an unrelated note new pictures of the construction of Queen Elizabeath blocks
Navy's new carriers take shape in Scotland
Navy's new carriers take shape in Scotland
Build programme 'well under way'...


The Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) is forging ahead on the Queen Elizabeth (QE) Class, having recently made contract awards worth £325 million that will drive momentum into the ongoing build of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

On 14 January, Secretary of State for Scotland, Jim Murphy MP visited Govan to welcome the contracts which have been placed in Scotland. Following the visit, he said:

"These contract awards are great news for Glasgow, the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs. There has never been any doubt how important the aircraft carriers are to Scotland as a multibillion pound project securing thousands of jobs."

The contracts have been awarded to five new suppliers to the Queen Elizabeth (QE) Class Aircraft Carrier Programme and will provide a number of vital services and parts for the ships, including fire fighting equipment and the transportation for the massive super blocks from the build yards across the UK to Rosyth for final assembly.

The award of these contracts by the Alliance is a clear indication of the progress that is being made on the QE Class programme and the momentum achieved in 2009. In total, the Alliance is expected to award around £1.5 billion of contracts across the programme.

Minister for Defence Equipment and Support Quentin Davies said:

"This news should reassure those who doubt this Government's commitment to the programme. These sub-contracts will contribute thousands of jobs throughout the supply chain in addition to the thousands of jobs at the main shipyards which are building the ships.

"The build phase of the Carrier programme is now well under way. The first units have already been delivered to Rosyth where these ships - the cornerstone of the Royal Navy of the future - will be assembled."

The innovative ACA is a single integrated team formed from Babcock, BAE Systems, Thales UK and the MOD (which acts as both partner and client). It is responsible for delivering the Queen Elizabeth Class ships to time and cost.


The contract to build the two new Aircraft Carriers for the Royal Navy was signed on 3rd July 2008. The carriers will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed for the UK and represent a step change in Joint Capability. They will enable the delivery of increased strategic effect and influence around the world, at a time and place of the UK's choosing, and will be a key component of the improved expeditionary capabilities needed to confront the diverse range of threats in today's security environment.

nice to see so much progress.
In regards to the C3 and its potential missile armament it realy shouldn't have anything with a footprint larger than Sea RAM a local controlled CIWS with missiles rather than cannon. So im lukewarm about any VLS solutions as they just take up lots of space.

Im keen to see what CAMM and the launcher will look like both Army and Navy versions it being a Cold Launched VLS should make a RAM-ski do-able.

How much extra support dose Harpoon add to a ship. extra cannisters to check another station in use for. Still preferred the utility of a copter launched missile. Merlin should be capable of carrying NSM (2) which has most of the befits of Harpoon. and the update to the sea Skua from TCW should be similarly useful

Really nice find, Harry.

First pics of Queen Elizabeth and nobody seems to care.

 

[gf0012-aust]

First pics of Queen Elizabeth and nobody seems to care.

I do, I certainly want to see the RN stay in the carrier business.

on another note, is anyone aware of the tech sheets re why RN went for a split citadel?

 

[kato]

That's interesting what you say about the Standard's range limitations in anti-surface mode, presumably that's due to the SARH guidance?

Can't target something you can't point the director at in a straight line, so yeah...

 

[swerve]

Really nice find, Harry.

First pics of Queen Elizabeth and nobody seems to care.

It's being said elsewhere that the pictures are wrongly labelled, & are actually of sections of HMS Duncan.

 

[swerve]

However I think by the 90s we have Harriers with Sea Eagle and Lynx with Skua and the cold war is almost over, but I again agree I would probably have fitted Harpoon, but I would have still gone with a single Sea Dart based missile.

IIRC Sub-Harpoon was selected in the 1970s, & surface launched Harpoon was bought in the 1980s, ordered before Gorbachev. Sea Eagle was a missile in the same class as Harpoon, & IMO the matter under discussion isn't the purchase of Harpoon specifically, but of dedicated anti-ship missiles. Whether we bought Harpoon, or surface-launched Sea Eagle, isn't significant in this context. It's whether we adopt, at the height of the Cold War (I don't remember anyone predicting its imminent end when Brezhnev, Andropov & Chernenko were in power, & I was keenly interested in politics at the time), a line-of-sight only missile with a warhead useful only against FACs & similarly small vessels, to replace our Exocets, or an over the horizon, active homing missile with ten times the warhead.

BTW, we bought Sub-Harpoon as well as other variants. Would you dispense with that altogether?

 

[harryriedl]

It's being said elsewhere that the pictures are wrongly labelled, & are actually of sections of HMS Duncan.

odd considering in the background is the aft section of Duncan and the hull was scale wise much larger than the hull of a T-45. Beam-wise.

I still find their is utility for Harpoon but using it as a Land Attack missile with its decent range.

 

[Troothsayer]

odd considering in the background is the aft section of Duncan and the hull was scale wise much larger than the hull of a T-45. Beam-wise.

Indeed the hull of a T45 isn't as flat as that, the sides incline much more steeply than that big chunk visible in the picture.

Who are the people saying it's been mis-identified?

 

[swerve]

Someone who got confused over a caption identifying a section of Duncan in the background of the picture, I think.

 

[Troothsayer]

Is it possible to identify what piece of QE this is ? Last months navy news said that 'block 3' was being worked on at Govan

This is from Beedalls site but I know the workshare has changed and haven't seen an up to date graphic

 

[harryriedl]

Is it possible to identify what piece of QE this is ? Last months navy news said that 'block 3' was being worked on at Govan

This is from Beedalls site but I know the workshare has changed and haven't seen an up to date graphic

As the blocks in Govan I would guess that it would be one of the Govan blocks say from S to M. As you can't see underneath I don't know whether is sheers away to be sure although this is a complete guess as it easily could be something different

 

[1805]

IIRC Sub-Harpoon was selected in the 1970s, & surface launched Harpoon was bought in the 1980s, ordered before Gorbachev. Sea Eagle was a missile in the same class as Harpoon, & IMO the matter under discussion isn't the purchase of Harpoon specifically (agreed I was just referring to Sea Eagle as that was what we had on the Harriers at the time, but there is an interesting separate debate about crap RN procurement, why did they commission Sea Eagle as an air launched version, if they didn't intend to buy a ship and sub versions??) , but of dedicated anti-ship missiles.

Whether we bought Harpoon, or surface-launched Sea Eagle, isn't significant in this context. It's whether we adopt (agreed but I have commented on it as it is an odd but seprate debate), at the height of the Cold War (I don't remember anyone predicting its imminent end when Brezhnev, Andropov & Chernenko were in power, & I was keenly interested in politics at the time), a line-of-sight only missile with a warhead useful only against FACs & similarly small vessels, to replace our Exocets, or an over the horizon, active homing missile with ten times the warhead.

BTW, we bought Sub-Harpoon as well as other variants. Would you dispense with that altogether?

No sub-harpoon makes a lot of send....mind I have stong views on SSN as you can imagine!

To some up which I suspect you will almost agree with:

1, Best way to deal with Soviets was developed in 50s....design arguably the best low level naval attack aircraft ever and fit it with advanced (for their day) anti ship missiles and fly from carriers (Buccaneer/Martle)

2 Carriers cancelled.....in desparation fit Exocet and hope for US carriers and Russians don't develop them.

3 Arrival of Sea Harrier/Sea Eagle and Lynx/Skua, less of an issue, however as they were knocking about I would probably have fitted Harpoon to sum T23s but I would have fitted VL version of Sea Dart and pumped very penny into its development as a Land based SAM and dropped Sea Wolf(just to heavy installation) and Rapier. I might have fitted RAM later. BTW I ran across a picture of Sea RAM on HMS York as a trial I was very surprised ?

One thing about the limitation of SARH missiles in the anti ship role is the over the horizion piece but I doubt you would hit anything with a over the horizion missile unless you have guidance from a helicopter or aircraft which in all likehood would fire the missile themselves.

 

[1805]

This amuses me-only the British press are too stupid to believe Typhoon is 'just' a Cold War Warrior . It is a multi-role combat aircraft-take a look at the FGR.4. Whereas the Tornado is, it even needed seperate variants to do different jobs, and the F.3 was never a true fighter, just an interceptor, built for the Cold War role of intercepting bombers.

I am not going to defend the Tornado as I think it was an expensive waste of money, when a perfectly good alternative was available (Buccaneers which was put forward for TSR2 role the Tornado eventially filled) Had they not spent the money they could have built a half decent fighter. If you want to learn how to procure aircaft look at the French, its about compromise, sometimes not gold plating in the national interest. We will be lucky to have an aircraft industry after the wreckage of EF/JSF

It also amuses me that an Army General is trying to tell the RAF how to run the Air Force. I'm sure in the past, in the RAF thread, the use of Super Tucanos was discussed and discounted due to speed, range, and loitering time issues.

This is not some wet junior officer this is the Professional Head of the Armed Forces, although I can be very critical he has a point; F4s were used as adequate bombers in Vietnam but it was the Skyraiders/Skyhawks that where most useful/cost effective and the A10 was the perfect creation to fill the role. Not sexy like a Raptor and the USAF shows scant interest in them (I think most if all are in National Guard hands). This is the problem with independent airforces they neglect the people they should be serving the Army/Navy and largely why we punched significanlty below our weight in he first 4 years of WW2

Hawk 200/Goshawk only becomes relevant if the new Carriers get catapults and arrestor gear. As it stands, they aren't. Anyway, 80/90 F-35B would be enough to operate the Carriers in the intended way, one in use, one in refit/training.

If you read my original comment I was saying this is another reason why we should go for catapults now on the CVs. However you are quite right if we get 80/90 F35s that will be critical mass to consign the Typhoon to oblivion, as they will see no action, they might aswell be crated up and shipped off for gate guard duty now. I don't think there has been any air commitment greater than 40 fighter/bombers in one conflict since the 60s, the RN will now be able to handle them all again as they did before the carriers demise. The RAF can now focus on logistics though why the Army can't do this themselves must be a question they would like an answer for....a third less top brass what a saving

If you had bothered to read the MOD link properly, you would see it was dated at June/July 2008, so even if it took 10 years (which it won't, 7 years to IOC is what is widely reported) CAMM would still enter service in 2018, what 5 years before the first T23 decommissioning, and a whole 18 years before the last (see the relevant section of Hansard for T23 OSD if you are interested). Given the troubles in recent years with 'equipment shortages' that the Govt have had, it would be an extremely dumb Govt to let a class of Frigates go on for another 20 odd years without doing something to upgrade them and keep them relatively 'current'.

Whilst alot of your ideas are interesting 1805, it would help if you could place them within the context of the real RN and what we know, i.e. what is published. As I said above, Goshawk is all very well and good, but you seem to overlook the fact that the QEs won't atm have catapults when they enter service.

These so called 'Defence Cuts' that the media is touting have to be put into context here. The Army, in my mind, are stirring. Why you ask? Because their future projects remain unfunded. I don't see FRES* being ordered at the moment or any future MBTs being designed. With the RNs pet projects ordered/funded, and the RAF on course to get most of what it wants, the Army is probably feeling left out, hence this General pushing for a thorough Defence Review, and for Britians Armed Forces to be orientated around counter-insurgency work (or in other words, Army-centric), to make sure they get the money they want, even if at the expense of the other two services, which I hope doesn't happen, as I think the RN in particular, can't take any more cuts.

Now my last paragraph was speculation/analysis from me, but I do just hope that the service chiefs don't do the treasuries bidding and help the treasury cut the defence budget by infighting.

*Incidently, if these UORs continue, it might die completely.

Just read what you have said again, I find it quite distasteful, the number one priority at present is the war in Afghanistan, 2-3 soldiers are dying a week and they need better armoured vehicles, the Marines could do with them too. The "RN/RAF are ok stuff the Army they don't need their FRES anyway" view is just not acceptable. The RN will take cuts and they will be heavier because people like you put their heads in the sand and do not anticipate them. You avoid crashes on the road by looking a few cars ahead, merely blaming the politicans is decidely German Army in 1918 and the tiersome stabbed in the back routine. We will be lucky to get away with 1-2 frigate/destroyers retired early, maybe a sub and as said F35 cut back to c80/90.

 

[kev 99]

Fres has nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan, those requirements are being met by UORs, the FRES requirements are for replacements for worm out cold war infantry vehicles that may or may not be used in Afghanistan anyway. The first part of FRES is a scout tank, does anyone think that would be more useful in Afghanistan than the patrol vehicles that are actually being ordered under UORs?

 

[riksavage]

Off topic, Janes are reporting the following;

"The UK and Australia have opened a government-to-government dialogue to explore the potential for co-operation on their respective frigate and minor war vessel replacement programmes.

Information exchanges are expected to continue around the Pacific 2010 conference and exhibition, running in Sydney from 27-29 January. The UK has also engaged with its counterparts in New Zealand with regard to its ANZAC frigate replacement plans.

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is expected to announce in February the start of a four-year assessment phase for the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) C1 variant.

Under a separate funding line, concept phase activities for a Future Mine Countermeasures/Hydrographic/Patrol Vessel (FMHPV), previously identified as FSC C3, are expected to commence in April 2010."

Hopefully the MCM replacement will end up as a multi-task littoral vessel, which might prove popular with both the Aus and NZ navies, particularly if it has the endurance to act as a true OSP, MCM and sea-lane protection platform (anti-piracy).

 

[ASFC]

Just read what you have said again, I find it quite distasteful, the number one priority at present is the war in Afghanistan, 2-3 soldiers are dying a week and they need better armoured vehicles, the Marines could do with them too. The "RN/RAF are ok stuff the Army they don't need their FRES anyway" view is just not acceptable. The RN will take cuts and they will be heavier because people like you put their heads in the sand and do not anticipate them. You avoid crashes on the road by looking a few cars ahead, merely blaming the politicans is decidely German Army in 1918 and the tiersome stabbed in the back routine. We will be lucky to get away with 1-2 frigate/destroyers retired early, maybe a sub and as said F35 cut back to c80/90.

Where did I say this???? :mad3 How dare you accuse me of not supporting the troops in Afghanistan!? If YOU MUST KNOW I would rather that Defence spending was increased to cover what everbody wanted, i.e. what is needed now and what is needed in the future. The General made some very good points, however I think the Professional head of the ARMY is hardly the expert on the best use of airpower, or on how to run the Royal Navy for that matter. Go away and think about it. The head of the RN also made a very good point-the Falklands came in from left of field, and he is right, if the right balance is not sought then we leave ourselfs short for the future-a future nobody can predict.

I didn't say that the Army didn't need FRES, I was just passing comment on the fact if you take an overview of current major projects, it is the one at most risk. A quick google of FRES would tell you that the programme has been restructured and the first attempt at it scrapped. Naturally the Army is worried it will be the target of cuts. If you know your history you will know this has happened before-1966, when the services had massive infighting over what to buy/cancel, and the treasury used it to its advantage and the Armed Forces Disadvantage to just cancel several major projects, including the then QE CV and TSR 2 and then F-111.

 

[windscorpion]

Some weapons take longer to develop and procure than others too, while a tank or patrol vehicle can be bought off the shelf relatively quickly you can't quite pop down the shops and buy an SSN.

Also re: Afghanistan, as we are supposed to be going to pull out in a year or so wiping out major defence projects which would serve the nation for decades now to buy stuff for the Army which is not likely to be ready for use until we are supposed to be pulling out seems misguided.

Bottom line we need to spend more on defence and less on teenage single mums' fags budgets.