The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Looking at images of Tiger, she would have beed a useful asset down south, being more heavily armed (guns) and armoured than the rest of the fleet would have been a boon for NGS. I wonder how her armour would have stood up to repeated attacks?

Biggest thing against Tiger and Blake were the fact that her steam plant required a big crew - as large as an Invincible I seem to recall. But yes, those rapid firing 3 inch guns would have been extremely useful in close quarters AAA.

I doubt the armour would have been a factor however.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Change of topic
I know there has been plenty of discussions reference the merits of Sea Gripen, but with the UK defence budget being under extreme duress coupled with the growing likelihood of F35C numbers being severely cut, would there ever be any long term cost benefits to buying a couple of operatioanl sgn's, plus conversion unit of Sea Gripen for the FAA?

I can't see adding another type with a completely novel spares supply chain to the mix as being anything other than expensive and counter productive. Gripen uses an F404 engine I believe plus a pile of other bits we don't use, and isn't cleared for some of the stores we use, would need a separate conversion path for pilots etc. All of that will eat up any savings from buying a cheaper airframe.


Ian

 

[swerve]

Current Gripen uses a Swedish-modified F404. Gripen NG uses F414.

Buying Sea Gripen instead of F-35C could save money, but I can't see how buying a few of each would make any financial sense.

 

[riksavage]

Current Gripen uses a Swedish-modified F404. Gripen NG uses F414.

Buying Sea Gripen instead of F-35C could save money, but I can't see how buying a few of each would make any financial sense.

You are probably right, but I can't get my head around the fact we are using gold plated hammers to crack nuts in Afghanistan/Libya. Having a cheaper multi-role aircraft, which sits below Typhoon/F35C, capable of being launched from a QE class would be ideal for the current Afghanistan/Libya scenario. Gripen's selling points - easy to maintain, austere landing field capability and cheaper costs do sound attractive when fighting asymmetrical/low end foes. Leave the high-end expensive airframes for deep strike/UK CAP and tier one battles.

Maybe it's time for a marinized piston aircraft with folding wings, heavy payload with an armored cab - A10 on the cheap. I wonder whether a modified Raptor could fly off a QE class, assuming the wings could be folded, improved landing gear and an automated landing system installed. The UK will have two operational sqns soon with 10 x airframes. Buy a marinized version and you have a great long range UCAV, which is already in service with trained crews. The control station takes up almost zero space.

 

[kev 99]

You are probably right, but I can't get my head around the fact we are using gold plated hammers to crack nuts in Afghanistan/Libya. Having a cheaper multi-role aircraft, which sits below Typhoon/F35C, capable of being launched from a QE class would be ideal for the current Afghanistan/Libya scenario. Gripen's selling points - easy to maintain, austere landing field capability and cheaper costs do sound attractive when fighting asymmetrical/low end foes. Leave the high-end expensive airframes for deep strike/UK CAP and tier one battles.

Maybe it's time for a marinized piston aircraft with folding wings, heavy payload with an armored cab - A10 on the cheap. I wonder whether a modified Raptor could fly off a QE class, assuming the wings could be folded, improved landing gear and an automated landing system installed. The UK will have two operational sqns soon with 10 x airframes. Buy a marinized version and you have a great long range UCAV, which is already in service with trained crews. The control station takes up almost zero space.

Marinised armed recon version of Mantis, with dual mode Brimstone, Paveway 4, Sea Skua 2/whatever and the new Spear 3.

Raptor? I assuming you mean Reaper?

 

[riksavage]

Marinised armed recon version of Mantis, with dual mode Brimstone, Paveway 4, Sea Skua 2/whatever and the new Spear 3.

Raptor? I assuming you mean Reaper?

Correct, my error.

 

[welsh1]

would the sea typhoon really be that bad? would help with running costs if its the only type of combat aircraft the RAF are using.

 

[WillS]

would the sea typhoon really be that bad? would help with running costs if its the only type of combat aircraft the RAF are using.

As the only likely customer we'd have to shoulder 100% of the uncertain development costs for an aircraft unproven in this configuration. Although the Sea Typhoon idea does have certain attractions, on past performance it'd be late and over budget.

F18 Super Hornet would be better (and I realise there's little chance of us buying). It's proven, still being produced for a navy that knows a thing or two about carrier operations, and there's a massive spares market.

WillS

 

[jaffo4011]

As the only likely customer we'd have to shoulder 100% of the uncertain development costs for an aircraft unproven in this configuration. Although the Sea Typhoon idea does have certain attractions, on past performance it'd be late and over budget.

F18 Super Hornet would be better (and I realise there's little chance of us buying). It's proven, still being produced for a navy that knows a thing or two about carrier operations, and there's a massive spares market.

WillS

according to air combat magazine last month,bae are actively developing a sea typhoon to offer to the indian navy....if this is the case,i am sure its with an eye on the royal navy too....they state that it requires minimum changes(still substantial tho) and would be able to use existing ski jump type carriers currently used by the indians due to its high power to weight ratios.....
as such and ive said this before,the 'excess'tiffie airframes ordered by the raf could be utilised in the sea typhoon,saving a lot of dosh whilst maintaining a high uniformity between the 2 services.....plus an indian order will keep costs down even more.

 

[kev 99]

BAE's offer to India is nothing more than chancing their arm, Sea Tiffie will never happen, and as for it being achievable with minimal modification; well, this is the same BAE that vastly underestimated the work involved in MRA4.

 

[fretburner]

Question: How will the new destroyers engage enemy AC launching stand off weapons?

I ask because the PAAMS/Sea Viper will only have ranges of up to 30mi right? Many stand off weapons have so much more range than that. If those are used against these destroyers, then they will be totally defensive and will not be able to fight back? Unlike for example, a Burke being able to fire SM2/SM6 whose ranges go beyond 100mi.

 

[jaffo4011]

Question: How will the new destroyers engage enemy AC launching stand off weapons?

I ask because the PAAMS/Sea Viper will only have ranges of up to 30mi right? Many stand off weapons have so much more range than that. If those are used against these destroyers, then they will be totally defensive and will not be able to fight back? Unlike for example, a Burke being able to fire SM2/SM3 whose ranges go beyond 100mi.

thats why you need aircraft support......

 

[StobieWan]

Question: How will the new destroyers engage enemy AC launching stand off weapons?

I ask because the PAAMS/Sea Viper will only have ranges of up to 30mi right? Many stand off weapons have so much more range than that. If those are used against these destroyers, then they will be totally defensive and will not be able to fight back? Unlike for example, a Burke being able to fire SM2/SM3 whose ranges go beyond 100mi.

SM3 is exoatmospheric only - it can't intercept targets inside the earth's atmosphere.
Sea Viper ranges out to 100-120Km or about double the figure you've quoted.

SM2 is a missile which in some configurations has a longer range than SeaViper but of course, it relies on terminal illumination during the final seconds of guidance.

It's unlikely that engagement ranges will be that far anyway - the launching aircraft would have to be flying pretty damn high and therefore fairly vulnerable to counter measures and interception.

If it's not then it can't be targeted by SM2 or anything else - it'd be under the horizon and rely on off board guidance using CEC - say, by E2-D - and if there's one of those, there'll be F18's nearby, good bye launching aircraft.

Better to ask how a Burke will cope with multiple attacks on a single beam, simultaneously - it's a more credible scenario and probably worries the USN more.

Ian

 

[rip]

SM3 is exoatmospheric only - it can't intercept targets inside the earth's atmosphere.
Sea Viper ranges out to 100-120Km or about double the figure you've quoted.

SM2 is a missile which in some configurations has a longer range than SeaViper but of course, it relies on terminal illumination during the final seconds of guidance.

It's unlikely that engagement ranges will be that far anyway - the launching aircraft would have to be flying pretty damn high and therefore fairly vulnerable to counter measures and interception.

If it's not then it can't be targeted by SM2 or anything else - it'd be under the horizon and rely on off board guidance using CEC - say, by E2-D - and if there's one of those, there'll be F18's nearby, good bye launching aircraft.

Better to ask how a Burke will cope with multiple attacks on a single beam, simultaneously - it's a more credible scenario and probably worries the USN more.

Ian

As a heads up, I think the new tactical environment for the US Navy will be that most versions of the extended range version of the SM-2 will be eventually replaced with the SM-6 for all Aegis equipped ships. The Sm-6 is now being delivered to the fleet which has both semi-active homing as is the SM-2 and fully active homing features, giving it an effective 200 + mile range of operations beyond the line of sight when used with remote launch mode when it is queued from a forward observer of ether a E-2D or some drone or someday even a new as yet to be designed satellite.

As to your comment,

“Better to ask how a Burke will cope with multiple attacks on a single beam, simultaneously - it's a more credible scenario and probably worries the USN more.”

This comment leaves me somewhat confused as to what you mean by the term a single beam. Do you mean a single beam coverage of the AN/SPY-1D radar (as to its munity-functions track while scan power sharing capacities) or do you mean a saturation attack coming from one direction?

In case one, true that the more targets that you have to track coming in from one direction, the more power you have to use within a smaller volume of space and thus the less power you have available for additional detection of new targets. One AN/SPY-1D has one transmitter that uses two phase shifting antennae faces which covers about 195 degrees of space around the ship, there is some overlap. But each Burke has two AN’SPY-1D’s. Usually when operating in the AA mode, but not the ABM mode, there is plenty of power to do both, it is a megawatt radar. However, if necessary, just orient the ship so that both radars can cover the same attack vector, inconvenient but doable.

In case two, both of the SM-2 versions and the SM-6, when used in the semi-active homing mode, are command guided until sixty seconds before intercept giving the three fire control illuminators plenty of capacity to have many missiles in flight all at the same time. The number of targets that can be engaged at the same time is a function of the number of S-band commands link channels, the computing power of the fire control system, and the software. Information that is not available in the open sources.

 

[fretburner]

StobieWan, I meant SM6 not SM3 (edited my post just now).

I also recalled Burkes can track hundreds or even a thousand or more targets and theoretically engage a hundred or so targets "simultaneously" (really prioritizing threats and engaging them one at a time). Or at least that was what a former US Navy guy told me.

I would imagine the latest RN destroyer will be able to do this as well. However, her missiles wouldn't be able to "reach" as far as the SM2s/SM6s, so that in a "Red Storm Rising" kind of a scenario, it will be totally defensive, i.e. just shooting at inbound missiles or "glide bombs" like the JSOW. So without friendly AC, these new destroyers will NOT be able to hit back against enemy AC launching Harpoons and JSOWs?

 

[swerve]

... I can't get my head around the fact we are using gold plated hammers to crack nuts in Afghanistan/Libya. ....

Nor me. I see infantrymen using Javelins against single riflemen, Brimstone launched from fast jets against individual snipers, bloody great EPWII dropped from supersonic jets on individual AFVs in a park of vehicles where dumb bombs could be used to wreck the lot at a fraction of the cost, etc., etc.

It's frustrating. Aircraft of stupefying cost, dropping weapons each costing from tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds, when the same effect could be achieved by vastly cheaper weapons & platforms.

 

[Hambo]

StobieWan, I meant SM6 not SM3 (edited my post just now).

I also recalled Burkes can track hundreds or even a thousand or more targets and theoretically engage a hundred or so targets "simultaneously" (really prioritizing threats and engaging them one at a time). Or at least that was what a former US Navy guy told me.

I would imagine the latest RN destroyer will be able to do this as well. However, her missiles wouldn't be able to "reach" as far as the SM2s/SM6s, so that in a "Red Storm Rising" kind of a scenario, it will be totally defensive, i.e. just shooting at inbound missiles or "glide bombs" like the JSOW. So without friendly AC, these new destroyers will NOT be able to hit back against enemy AC launching Harpoons and JSOWs?

The Red Storm Rising scenario requires an opponent on the scale of the old soviet union. Unless we want to fight china ever so soon there arent many smaller nations who could co-ordinate an attack that would overwhelm a group made up of a couple of T45s and T23s. Only the USN can afford to cover all bases to use a phrase from one of their sports. We will be adding F35 and the SSNs will actually provide a way of hitting back with Tomahawk (as will the Taranis concept if it evolves into anything like its potential).

CAMM missile is probably a very sensible concept. Cheap, cheerful and with a cold launch it should be "bolt-on-able" to add a lot of cheap missiles to provide defence out to 10 miles, so in reality you wont be shooting down cheap guided missiles with £1m a pop Asters, you will be shooting £200k CAMM rounds.

If you look at the mbda spear concept, the 100kg FASGW concept looks interesting, giving twice the range of Sea skua , so 50 KM for a weapon that could be carried in quantIty by each aircraft, so the RN will posses a very potent asset.

 

[Systems Adict]

If you look at the mbda spear concept, the 100kg FASGW concept looks interesting, giving twice the range of Sea skua , so 50 KM for a weapon that could be carried in quantIty by each aircraft, so the RN will posses a very potent asset.

Hmmm... cloud cuckoo land calling...!

Current A/C within RN (Note: RN A/C = Helo's till we actually get some F-35's)

Sea King - Due to retire soon.
Merlin - Can't carry Skua
Lynx - AFAIK can only carry x2 skua @ any 1 time
Wildcat - not operational as it's still in development
Longbow - Hmmm not really an RN asset per-say !

So, if in the future we procure 'X' number of Wildcat & actually spend the cash & buy and integrate 'Y' number of FASGW, then we may just be off to a very small flyer...

But I wouldn't hold your breath just yet !

:nutkick

SA

 

[Hambo]

Hmmm... cloud cuckoo land calling...!

Current A/C within RN (Note: RN A/C = Helo's till we actually get some F-35's)

Sea King - Due to retire soon.
Merlin - Can't carry Skua
Lynx - AFAIK can only carry x2 skua @ any 1 time
Wildcat - not operational as it's still in development
Longbow - Hmmm not really an RN asset per-say !

So, if in the future we procure 'X' number of Wildcat & actually spend the cash & buy and integrate 'Y' number of FASGW, then we may just be off to a very small flyer...

As I understood it, FASGW (H) may form the basis of future SPEAR derivatives, my be reading duff info such as defence-update.com


But I wouldn't hold your breath just yet !

:nutkick

SA

i might be reading duff info eg defence-update.com, but was under the impression that FASGW(h) may be one option for the SPEAR idea that would offer a range of capabilities using existing programmes to meet future needs that could be an option for fast jets?. Stand corrected if Im wrong or sources have been superceded by cancellations etc.

 

[kev 99]

Hmmm... cloud cuckoo land calling...!

Current A/C within RN (Note: RN A/C = Helo's till we actually get some F-35's)

Sea King - Due to retire soon.
Merlin - Can't carry Skua
Lynx - AFAIK can only carry x2 skua @ any 1 time
Wildcat - not operational as it's still in development
Longbow - Hmmm not really an RN asset per-say !

So, if in the future we procure 'X' number of Wildcat & actually spend the cash & buy and integrate 'Y' number of FASGW, then we may just be off to a very small flyer...

But I wouldn't hold your breath just yet !

:nutkick

SA

Lynx can carry 4 x Sea Skua.

Merlin are getting optical targeting equipment as part of the capability sustainment programme, anyone know if this would enable integration of Sea Skua or it's replacement in future?

Hambo you are correct, the Spear requirement is supposedly being built upon the back of the FASGW(H), but current mock-ups of the Spear capability 3 look like a mini Stormshadow.

Business Model # 1: Team CW | SLDInfo