The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[citizen578]

I wasn't defending the merchantman concept. Agreed there have only been two incidents INS Hanit & HMS Glamorgan? I note your point about negligence. The captain may well have been, but then it’s easy to scapegoat an officer, the INS Hanit was hit bya small missile from a single launch. Generally a warship stands out on the sea, as a much easier target than a mobile battery firing multiple missile. Maybe when the warship is distracted on other tasks minesweeping/escorting.

How many direct fire opportunities are you ever likely to have against a warship... none. (excluding terrorism)
Glamorgan was hit by a modified MM38 due to the ship's command taking a short-cut to rejoin the TF, despite a known threat. The Israeli Navy have had one or two incidents also. Are frigates a good target for shore batteries? No. They typically sit well beyond visual range (hence beyond the current day targeting capabilities of field artillery), are moving targets, and would demand a specific solution which are few and far between, and are far more vulnerable to attack than the very units they are sent to eliminate.

Generally a minhunter would not go in unless the area had been sanitised by naval/marine/air forces first. The RN's minehunting efforts in and around Al Faw during both Gulf wars are a classic modern example.

And (to paraphrase Page, not anyone here) merhcant/auxiliary convervions are the answer?... utter madness. The guy, regardless of any previous service, is clueless.

 

[1805]

How many direct fire opportunities are you ever likely to have against a warship... none. (excluding terrorism)
Glamorgan was hit by a modified MM38 due to the ship's command taking a short-cut to rejoin the TF, despite a known threat. The Israeli Navy have had one or two incidents also. Are frigates a good target for shore batteries? No. They typically sit well beyond visual range (hence beyond the current day targeting capabilities of field artillery), are moving targets, and would demand a specific solution which are few and far between, and are far more vulnerable to attack than the very units they are sent to eliminate.

Generally a minhunter would not go in unless the area had been sanitised by naval/marine/air forces first. The RN's minehunting efforts in and around Al Faw during both Gulf wars are a classic modern example.

And (to paraphrase Page, not anyone here) merhcant/auxiliary convervions are the answer?... utter madness. The guy, regardless of any previous service, is clueless.

Well I can't defend Page as I think the ideas are off the wall aswell. But using 4.5" guns on frigates, would be unwise in the Gulf. Mobile batteries of C802 missles would be much more difficult to find than say a Scuds in GW1. Recently despite massive superiority of firepower Israel was unable to completely stop the flow of unguide missiles (ie find the launchers) in Gaza. I think there are much more useful weapons that could replace 4.5" guns: like cruise missiles/even smaller ships more expendable ships with the likes of AMOS mortar systems

 

[citizen578]

Well I can't defend Page as I think the ideas are off the wall aswell. But using 4.5" guns on frigates, would be unwise in the Gulf. Mobile batteries of C802 missles would be much more difficult to find than say a Scuds in GW1. Recently despite massive superiority of firepower Israel was unable to completely stop the flow of unguide missiles (ie find the launchers) in Gaza. I think there are much more useful weapons that could replace 4.5" guns: like cruise missiles/even smaller ships more expendable ships with the likes of AMOS mortar systems

That really depends. The 4.5's were used in both Gulf wars to devestating effect, just as they were in the Falklands and elsewhere the RN has been called to intervene. Despite it's age it's still a great system, does exactly as it says on the tin.

If you're alluding to Iran, it can't provide a complete envelope of protection along its entire coast, and certainly it's shore-based AShM's would be very high on the list of targets. At the end of the day, quite apart from airstrikes, that's the kind of thing we procured stand-off weapons for. It's no biggy. Scuds, unless I'm mistaken... do not, and have never, had an anti-ship capability.

Yeah great. There's more capable systems than the 4.5.

Is there anything that (forgive the pun) can give the same bang for the buck? No.

 

[1805]

That really depends. The 4.5's were used in both Gulf wars to devestating effect, just as they were in the Falklands and elsewhere the RN has been called to intervene. Despite it's age it's still a great system, does exactly as it says on the tin.

If you're alluding to Iran, it can't provide a complete envelope of protection along its entire coast, and certainly it's shore-based AShM's would be very high on the list of targets. At the end of the day, quite apart from airstrikes, that's the kind of thing we procured stand-off weapons for. It's no biggy. Scuds, unless I'm mistaken... do not, and have never, had an anti-ship capability.

Yeah great. There's more capable systems than the 4.5.

Is there anything that (forgive the pun) can give the same bang for the buck? No.

I didn't mean the Scud would be used as an anti ship missile or the unguided rockets fired into Israel from Gaza. I meant its very hard to guarantee you can destroy every launcher. I think the 2/4 C802 launchers are smaller than a Scud Launcher. It amazed me at the time with all those Allied aircraft and special forces raids we still did not find all the Scud launchers.

Agreed the 4.5" is capable and done good service but time to retire. Yes some ships should have a gun but not all, we will have 6 on the T45s (hopefully upgraded with 155mm) lets give the T26 a couple of 57mm and some more silos instead.

 

[swerve]

If we have to put a ship close enough to shore to shell something, I want it to be a T26, not a rarer & more expensive T45.

 

[riksavage]

A marinized MLRS in place of a main gun doesn't make sense on a Frigate platform, how the hell are you going to RAS reloads at sea, by Chinook? One single engagement against multiple targets and the ship will have to divert to a friendly port to reload using specialized equipment. It's not just the weapon, but the logistics tail we have to think about. You have to keep the fleet at sea far from home in a protracted engagement, which means your RAS ships must be able to transfer high-rate of fire weapon ammo.

The best ship-to-shore weapon for the UK, which enables a vessel to carry a worthwhile heavy-hitting load, remains a main gun based on the 4.5 or current generation of land based 155's, firing guided munitions, which can be steered to target by SF or a rotary UAV (Firescout).

Forget high rate of fire 57mm's and stick to what is being used on land. UK T26's will have CAAM and Phalanx, they don't need another small caliber weapon with a secondary anti-air role, they need a heavy hitting shore bombardment tool. In a worst case scenario (assuming CAAM/Phalanx is considered too vulnerable) send the vessel to sea with with a T45 escort or with mobile Star Streak quad launches, which can be stowed aboard in ten minutes. Jerry rigging hand held low level missile defense systems has been done before by Navies transiting the Gulf involving minimum cost and effort.

If I was ashore and told you have a choice between calling in 155mm or rapid 57mm, I know which weapon I'd want covering my back. In fact if it was a choice between 57mm and something below a 155mm, I'd probably opt for an off-the-shelf 120mm marinized auto-loading mortar, (ideal for C3 which has an MCM role in a littoral environment). The average infantry Company will be deploying with 81mm mortars, which offers a greater blast radius than a 57mm, which to me somehow defeats the purpose of bringing to bare your Naval gun-line, they should be upping the anti, not reducing it!

Cruise missiles (TacTom/Stormshadow) or MLRS rounds should be limited to deep strike missions or missions against high value targets. A 155 mm main gun can provide a steady rate of fire against moving and static targets over an extended period, far more useful against failed states or supporting amphibious operations.

 

[kato]

how the hell are you going to RAS reloads at sea, by Chinook?

A standard RAS supply boom should be able to transfer at least 2.5 tons per run (CONREP STREAM: 5,700 lbs), and has been able to do so for decades.

A reload bracket of six MLRS rockets weighs about 2 tons, the single rockets weigh 300 kg. And yes, VERTREP is always an option too.

 

[Grim901]

I didn't mean the Scud would be used as an anti ship missile or the unguided rockets fired into Israel from Gaza. I meant its very hard to guarantee you can destroy every launcher. I think the 2/4 C802 launchers are smaller than a Scud Launcher. It amazed me at the time with all those Allied aircraft and special forces raids we still did not find all the Scud launchers.

Agreed the 4.5" is capable and done good service but time to retire. Yes some ships should have a gun but not all, we will have 6 on the T45s (hopefully upgraded with 155mm) lets give the T26 a couple of 57mm and some more silos instead.

Agree with Swerve on which ship i'd rather have entering gun rnage of enemy targets. And have you seen the "launchers" that are standard for Gaza? Most of the time they are two planks of wood firing a rocket made up in someone's basement.

A standard RAS supply boom should be able to transfer at least 2.5 tons per run (CONREP STREAM: 5,700 lbs), and has been able to do so for decades.

A reload bracket of six MLRS rockets weighs about 2 tons, the single rockets weigh 300 kg. And yes, VERTREP is always an option too.

But could that 2 ton reload bracket then be mounted into the launcher system at sea? A supply boom can transfer but I don't think they can load, otherwise wouldn't it be able to reload VLS cells?

 

[Palnatoke]

How many direct fire opportunities are you ever likely to have against a warship... none. (excluding terrorism)
Glamorgan was hit by a modified MM38 due to the ship's command taking a short-cut to rejoin the TF, despite a known threat. The Israeli Navy have had one or two incidents also. Are frigates a good target for shore batteries? No. They typically sit well beyond visual range (hence beyond the current day targeting capabilities of field artillery), are moving targets, and would demand a specific solution which are few and far between, and are far more vulnerable to attack than the very units they are sent to eliminate.

Generally a minhunter would not go in unless the area had been sanitised by naval/marine/air forces first. The RN's minehunting efforts in and around Al Faw during both Gulf wars are a classic modern example.

And (to paraphrase Page, not anyone here) merhcant/auxiliary convervions are the answer?... utter madness. The guy, regardless of any previous service, is clueless.

A ship whos gun can't outrange the defender will not be able to conduct shore bombardment against an enemy that got decent artillery and sensors. For one thing the (mid-air) shells will give away the position of the ship, making it a sitting, very expensive, target for counter-artillery.

Generally a minehunter should be a drone, a remote controlled robot. Completely brainless to send in a manned expensive ship against a mine, that a cabable and thinking enemy would have made very smart.

With a little knowledge about the 80'ties vintage mines deployed by the danish navy to block the danish straights, some of these mines could differentiate between ship classes, allow a programmable number of pases, or simply were remote controlled. These mines were burried on the bottom, made of materials hard to detect etc. A minesweeper could sweep for days without end - never knowing whether it got all the mines or not.
With todays tech and advances in AI? It's not going to be easy, it's going to be very dangerous to sweep'em all.

Further more I also have troubles with understanding the idea behind the ASW frigate. There is just something that doesn't rhyme,
Here you have a sub that holds an intrinsic stealth advantage, if the surface ship get's within weapons range, it's definately not the hunter - it's the hunted. So to avoid this, it uses it's helicopters (to my understanding). And it follows that the ship with best and most helicopters is the more cabable ASW ship, I should think.

 

[kato]

But could that 2 ton reload bracket then be mounted into the launcher system at sea? A supply boom can transfer but I don't think they can load, otherwise wouldn't it be able to reload VLS cells?

You'd obviously need a loading system on the ship itself, but you'd need that anyway to carry more than say the standard 12 rockets. Or to clean out dud rockets before tossing them overboard.
Mk41 VLS as deployed on US destroyers and cruisers used to have such reload cranes btw, until they were replaced with additional regular cells (reload crane took up three out of 64 cells).

 

[StevoJH]

Further more I also have troubles with understanding the idea behind the ASW frigate. There is just something that doesn't rhyme,
Here you have a sub that holds an intrinsic stealth advantage, if the surface ship get's within weapons range, it's definately not the hunter - it's the hunted. So to avoid this, it uses it's helicopters (to my understanding). And it follows that the ship with best and most helicopters is the more cabable ASW ship, I should think.

Hence why you had the RN building the Invincible class and the Japanese building their Helicopter destroyers.

However due to the cost of the Helicopters and ships, its impossible to have a fleet consisting soley of Invincible class 'Cruisers' and T45 'Destroyers' unless you were to accept having an extremely small number of ships. You then need to build low cost ships to cover routine patrol tasks because you can't deploy your expensive cruisers without an escort. So you will end up with something along the lines of the T21 or T23 anyway, though likely not as capable.

 

[MrQuintus]

Hence why you had the RN building the Invincible class and the Japanese building their Helicopter destroyers.

However due to the cost of the Helicopters and ships, its impossible to have a fleet consisting soley of Invincible class 'Cruisers' and T45 'Destroyers' unless you were to accept having an extremely small number of ships. You then need to build low cost ships to cover routine patrol tasks because you can't deploy your expensive cruisers without an escort. So you will end up with something along the lines of the T21 or T23 anyway, though likely not as capable.

Hey, now that's an idea, the RN has a standing requirement for 2 ships for the LPH role, how about we just build 16 * son of Ocean through deck cruisers instead, we could even use them to mothership CB90s off davits, I doubt the price would be much different to that of other proposed C2s (not including airwing) and they'd be much more useful.

Of course, I'm kidding, but it would make for a crazy looking task force.

 

[riksavage]

A standard RAS supply boom should be able to transfer at least 2.5 tons per run (CONREP STREAM: 5,700 lbs), and has been able to do so for decades.

A reload bracket of six MLRS rockets weighs about 2 tons, the single rockets weigh 300 kg. And yes, VERTREP is always an option too.

The only way this will work is by re-designing the current RAS system, weight is not the issue, it's the length of the MLRS round. Typically the Auxi vessel will travel parallel to the receiving vessel allowing both to transfer material amidships. The only way you are going to make the transfer of lengthy projectiles feasible is by moving the launcher system to the centre of the vessel and incorporating a pretty large open safe area tied to a high-mounted capable system to allow for movement in rough weather and to compensate for the size of the load.

One assumes the projectiles will have to be transferred either in the horizontal position, rotated 180 degrees and then slotted into vertical launchers, or if you go for a containerised option (say six missiles), use blocks of prepacked units transferred across after removing the existing empty pallet. You are talking about a pretty large and bulky item. Sounds like a logistical nightmare to me, a swinging pallet of that size will need a lot of free space above the deck to avoid any damage to surrounding critical infrastructure.

Compare all that to shipping of guided 155mm rounds in small manageable pallets using the current NATO standard RAS system. The 155mm pallets can then be broken down and fed into an automated loading system leading straight to the forward magazine( currently the practice used with T45 & T23 4.5" guns).

Sounds great in theory, but will not prove practical unless you redesign the entire supply chain. Stick to a main gun, and confine the missile system to CAAM and TacTom ( long trange strategic missions only).

 

[1805]

Hey, now that's an idea, the RN has a standing requirement for 2 ships for the LPH role, how about we just build 16 * son of Ocean through deck cruisers instead, we could even use them to mothership CB90s off davits, I doubt the price would be much different to that of other proposed C2s (not including airwing) and they'd be much more useful.

Of course, I'm kidding, but it would make for a crazy looking task force.

Indirectly I guess you would end up with an Absalon 2 x Merlins better than a T26? Cheap helicopter capable ships with lots of smaller ships to drag TAS The original concept behind the T23. Do we really need a 7000t ASW could we not get away with a Loch sized ship (it was the best ASW frigate of WW2!) . How big does a ship have to be to operate effectively a TAS?

 

[1805]

The only way this will work is by re-designing the current RAS system, weight is not the issue, it's the length of the MLRS round. Typically the Auxi vessel will travel parallel to the receiving vessel allowing both to transfer material amidships. The only way you are going to make the transfer of lengthy projectiles feasible is by moving the launcher system to the centre of the vessel and incorporating a pretty large open safe area tied to a high-mounted capable system to allow for movement in rough weather and to compensate for the size of the load.

One assumes the projectiles will have to be transferred either in the horizontal position, rotated 180 degrees and then slotted into vertical launchers, or if you go for a containerised option (say six missiles), use blocks of prepacked units transferred across after removing the existing empty pallet. You are talking about a pretty large and bulky item. Sounds like a logistical nightmare to me, a swinging pallet of that size will need a lot of free space above the deck to avoid any damage to surrounding critical infrastructure.

Compare all that to shipping of guided 155mm rounds in small manageable pallets using the current NATO standard RAS system. The 155mm pallets can then be broken down and fed into an automated loading system leading straight to the forward magazine( currently the practice used with T45 & T23 4.5" guns).

Sounds great in theory, but will not prove practical unless you redesign the entire supply chain. Stick to a main gun, and confine the missile system to CAAM and TacTom ( long trange strategic missions only).

Your probably right but it does seem to be the ordinance of choice of the armies on the ground. Maybe we are coming to the time when we need a specialist ship for shore bombardment instead of burdening ASW frigates. Like the converted landing ships in WW2, couple of 155mm guns and MLRS and maybe some form of armour plus CAMM/CIWS.

 

[kato]

Sounds great in theory, but will not prove practical unless you redesign the entire supply chain.

*shrug*

As for space on deckside... it's a new build. Just design the MLRS position and its magazine around such requirements. Make it possible to hoist the bracket from strikedown midships through the superstructure into the magazine. Possibly even all the way from the helo deck for simple VERTREP. Doesn't really take much.

It's not like a C2 would likely really have all that much clutter deckside that prohibits such operation. And it's not like bulky cargo with 2 tons weight is really an impossible load.

 

[bonehead]

i understand that trails using the same gun as challenger has been undertaken as well as the the gun on the AS90, for the navy is this true!!!

 

[riksavage]

The current 4.5" gun (derived from the Abbot SPA) provides the JATC assigned to the designated landing force with the equivalent of a half-battery of 105mm light guns. The range, explosive power and rate of fire (based on the MK1 auto loader) gives the deployed assets access to HE, smoke and illumination in rapid succession. Replace the 4.5" with a 155mm AS90 derived system and you bring the same (HE, smoke and illumination) plus airburst, extended range and guided munitions to the tool box.

Fit MLRS as a like for like replacement and you limit your options. Great range yes, but no smoke, no illumination and no easy switch between say airburst, HE or guided anti-material munitions unless preloaded in the launcher box/tubes prior to embarkation.

The Destroyer / Frigate main gun still provides unmatched versatility if in a heavy enough caliber and remains a cost effective solution to deal with a myriad of scenarios. Plus you are leveraging off a hugely competitive 155mm munitions market. Naval gun fire support adds to what the first wave of troops are likely to deploy with in the LI role (Javelin, 81 & 60mm mortars), it ups the anti to what the troops on the ground are used to in the form of light gun and/or 155mm SPA support critical to missions currently being conducted in A-Stan.

MLRS is something I would consider fitting to the T26 as a cheaper alternative to TacTom, but it would compliment, not replace 4.5 or 6" ship-to-shore ordinance. The importance of which will increase as more and more flashpoints take place along the littoral environment, which need removing with a relatively cheap product (shell) not a half-million pound missile.

 

[AndrewMI]

The optimum bombardment suite for the T-26 would clearly be the future 155mm advanced gun system for shore bombardment with TacTom for deep strike. These would be guided by unmanned drones flown from the flight deck.

MLRS would be handy in certain circumstances, but only as an add on (on the assumption that Harpoon, or Harpoon's replacement/upgrade will be fitted).

If this is going to be a high level war fighter it needs to be able to punch....

 

[swerve]

Not the AGS - that's a huge thing, with its own ammunition, unable to fire any standard 155mm shells.

No, either the current 4.5", or 127mm, or the proposed adaption of a standard land-based 155mm for a naval turret. Not the AGS!