The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

If you look carefully you'd find that the GCS is not being fitted with Phalanx 20mm. Instead it is a Phalanx-based directed-energy system. This seems to explain the hangar-mounted system: Firing cased-ammunition over the flight-deck is considered by many a no-no....

[ Will try to find a link to Think Defence blog.... ]

Fluffy,

WHAT have you been smoking ?????


Any of the BAE press releases I've seen (or that I've found on the BAE site & posted within the annals of this thread), as well as those released through other 'defence information websites' have never mentioned directed energy weapons.

http://www.baesystems.com/slideshow/BAES_027169/global-combat-ship

I would say it's Phalanx, or the LADS based on the phalanx mount (as mentioned in a previous post or two).

SA

 

[Belesari]

I think the idea is that you can eventually mount a DE systems in roughly the same place as the phalanx. When they are ready which the US is farthest along on the work and even we can admit we have a ways to go getting the power levels up.

Fluffy,

WHAT have you been smoking ?????


Any of the BAE press releases I've seen (or that I've found on the BAE site & posted within the annals of this thread), as well as those released through other 'defence information websites' have never mentioned directed energy weapons.

http://www.baesystems.com/slideshow/BAES_027169/global-combat-ship

I would say it's Phalanx, or the LADS based on the phalanx mount (as mentioned in a previous post or two).

SA

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think the idea is that you can eventually mount a DE systems in roughly the same place as the phalanx. When they are ready which the US is farthest along on the work and even we can admit we have a ways to go getting the power levels up.

There's a big caveat to that though.

Phalanx is non intrusive - you'd need any DE weapon to be the same.

Question is, where is the energy generation and storage kept?

It's significant - and comms runs by nature for these weapons systems are short, reload, heat, capacitive issues etc....

The mechanisms I saw in the US a few years back were quite demanding on space requirements for the above.

iceberg analogy

 

[RobWilliams]

I think the idea is that you can eventually mount a DE systems in roughly the same place as the phalanx. When they are ready which the US is farthest along on the work and even we can admit we have a ways to go getting the power levels up.

If the MOD has been planning ahead and really thinking about putting in DE systems at some point in the future, i'll eat my hat. As freakin' cool as it would be, i'm still highly skeptical.

Personally, I reckon it's just exactly what it appears on the surface, Phalanx 1b CIWS x 2 most probably fitted for, but not with then fitted as and when neccesary.

It's all based on those BAE computer generated images. IIRC the previous batch predicted a seperate dog kennel hanger + even showed a FireScout, how'd that turn out? We can also look at those images + say we can't see any torpedo tubes like you can on the Type 23 so does that neccesarily mean we've ditched them and are going to get ASROC?

EDIT: Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an attempt to get people to talk about the design a bit more really

 

[StobieWan]

There's a big caveat to that though.

Phalanx is non intrusive - you'd need any DE weapon to be the same.

Question is, where is the energy generation and storage kept?

It's significant - and comms runs by nature for these weapons systems are short, reload, heat, capacitive issues etc....

The mechanisms I saw in the US a few years back were quite demanding on space requirements for the above.

iceberg analogy

Exactly - the current Phalanx fleet is costed around it being easy to swap in and out to active units - I'm damn sure there's a shed load more gubbins under that LADS unit - it's a 20kw draw from the spec sheet. Frankly if we're spending lots of cash on kit that can't easily be relocated, can we have Mk110 each end instead ?

 

[1805]

I'm not sure if there's the right size rocket motor rattling around in the catalogue to get that reach - Meteor uses a ram jet so you'd need a booster to get it airborne, which rules out quad packing (too fat)


Mica doesn't have the legs..hmm...I don't think there's a solid fuel rocket motor in the MBDA catalogue that is long and narrow enough?

I was not thinking so much now, but down the line when people are looking at future joint developments. ESSM & CAMM/MICA are not really in the same space in size/range but then again they competitors for smaller ships main SAM armaments. One would hope a single missile development for the later would be cheaper, which is potentially a big attraction for many navies in this space, also less complex radar requirements maybe more agile then ESSM even if shorter range.

 

[Volkodav]

Phalanx 1b also gives you an anti surface capability against small fast craft employing swam tactics, a useful thing to have in the Persian Gulf. That said i am also a fan of RAM and it would be interesting to see if RAM Block II, which I belive will be offered in a VLS soft launch configuration for the ExLS, could be inegrated with the CAAM silos as an alternative or supplement to Sea Caeptor.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Fluffy,

WHAT have you been smoking ?????


Any of the BAE press releases I've seen (or that I've found on the BAE site & posted within the annals of this thread), as well as those released through other 'defence information websites' have never mentioned directed energy weapons.

To add: Most images of 1b - as we are buying 5 more at £8m a pop - show a chain-feed. There is no chain-feed in the CGI (but maybe it is a 2030+ image). The Royal Navy needs to allocate a energy source but the costs of development [for Defender] will have to be bourne by the US....
http://www.baesystems.com/slideshow/BAES_027169/global-combat-ship

I would say it's Phalanx, or the LADS based on the phalanx mount (as mentioned in a previous post or two).

SA

The link is here:

The Type 26 Global Combat Ship – Equipment | Think Defence

The speculation is it is a Raytheon Defender. Check the comments for the rationale why firing 20mm cased ammo over a flight-deck is risky and why directed-energy seems feesible. It's all to do with the images drain-pipe....

 

[StobieWan]

Meanwhile UK MOD orders five more Phalanx (as referenced by Systems Addict above.

UK MoD Awards Raytheon New Phalanx Contract | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

And these are intended for the RFA's by all accounts

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...dLogistics/MorePhalanxSystemsForRoyalNavy.htm

Which is encouraging - presumably it means more ships can have the thing fitted more often. Aspirationally, let's have it fitted on everything that sails outside of the English channel.

 

[RobWilliams]

Meanwhile UK MOD orders five more Phalanx (as referenced by Systems Addict above.

Which is encouraging - presumably it means more ships can have the thing fitted more often. Aspirationally, let's have it fitted on everything that sails outside of the English channel.

Nah, make it everything including the English channel, so the damned French don't get any ideas . .

In any case, I can't see why anyones getting excited over this one, even the author says the following

This is pure guesswork and could be me making too much of an incomplete rendering in response to a jolly wheeze on behalf of the graphic artist but those shown do not seem to have multiple barrels (it looks like a drainpipe) and looks remarkably like a Raytheon Defender, the laser version of the Phalanx.

 

[colay]

Phalanx 1b also gives you an anti surface capability against small fast craft employing swam tactics, a useful thing to have in the Persian Gulf. That said i am also a fan of RAM and it would be interesting to see if RAM Block II, which I belive will be offered in a VLS soft launch configuration for the ExLS, could be inegrated with the CAAM silos as an alternative or supplement to Sea Caeptor.

Wouldn't it be a simpler and cheaper exercise to simply swap the 11-round SeaRAM launcher for the 20mm gun and retain the Phalanx 1B sensor package rather than integrate RAM to launch from the ship's silos and work with it's combat management system?

 

[StobieWan]

Wouldn't it be a simpler and cheaper exercise to simply swap the 11-round SeaRAM launcher for the 20mm gun and retain the Phalanx 1B sensor package rather than integrate RAM to launch from the ship's silos and work with it's combat management system?

That's basically a SeaRam in it's entirety - SeaRam is a Phalanx mount with the 11 cell launcher, and is tied to the Phalanx radar - so you lose some range as the radar only reaches out to about 5km but yes, stacks simpler.

I can't see RAM working out of a VLS as by the time you've punted it into the air, toppled it etc..plus, is RAM capable of lock on after launch or does the seeker head need to be engaged first ?

 

[RobWilliams]

Well any talk of using DE weapons purely because of it's location, that "theory" (as weak as it is already) just got blown out of the water from the Euronaval brochure (24th Oct dated) in what appears to be a recent slight revision.

Looks to me like Phalanx has been relocated amidships like the Type 45 which doesn't surprise me. Check out page T26 or see attachment

http://www.meretmarine.com/sites/default/files/new_objets_drupal/ern2012-daily-02.pdf

 

[StobieWan]

Good God man, you're not trying to imply that moving the location of the CIWS is somehow cheaper than contracting for an entirely new DEWS ?

Pfft...


Nonsense

 

[RobWilliams]

Good God man, you're not trying to imply that moving the location of the CIWS is somehow cheaper than contracting for an entirely new DEWS ?

Pfft...


Nonsense

Always thought it was tosh anyway, no matter what the graphics said!

Just thought of something, isn't the plan to - ultimately - operate a joint UK/France carrier task group? So then wouldn't the RN indirectly have access to fixed wing AEW for something like 70% of the year?

I joke, I know it's not the same. But imagine that, a QE stuffed full of F-35B and a CdG with Rafale + Hawkeye, niiiice.

 

[StobieWan]

I don't know this for sure so grab a pinch of salt and so forth, but I kind of understood that this joint arrangement referred to managing refit work between the two countries such that at least one carrier was available at any one time, and that each country promised to kind of help out if <insert excuse>

So, say, Libya had flared up at at time when either carrier was down, the country with the down carrier contributed the things they could (in the times of STOVL, we're talking about trading escorts only)

Effectively, we'd toss the French a couple of T45's and make sure their carrier didn't get sunk, with possibly F35B on CdG decks (no ski jump but with a rolling takeoff, some sort of useful capability.

If CdG was down, they'd trade out some escorts, maybe cover some spots like the antipiracy patrol or the Caribbean thing for us while we rolled out the CVF.

I don't think you can get E2 off a CVF on a Ski jump, but I may well be wrong.

 

[RobWilliams]

Wouldn't it mostly be the other way round? What with the UK operating 2 CVF it'll be able to provide one all year round whereas the French have CdG with something like a 70% availability rate? (I think, that's the figure I have) so the UK will really be in control of the center of the task force.

Wasn't really thinking about swapping sections of airgroups, more in the line of ships.

So if CdG was out, for whatever reason, would it be reasonable to assume that they'd - probably - deploy the escorts for that CBG alongside that of the UK?

Also could the RN really operate 2 CVF simultaneously? Because that's something which when you actually look at potential airgroups, seems VERY cool.

 

[StobieWan]

Wouldn't it mostly be the other way round? What with the UK operating 2 CVF it'll be able to provide one all year round whereas the French have CdG with something like a 70% availability rate? (I think, that's the figure I have) so the UK will really be in control of the center of the task force.

Wasn't really thinking about swapping sections of airgroups, more in the line of ships.

So if CdG was out, for whatever reason, would it be reasonable to assume that they'd - probably - deploy the escorts for that CBG alongside that of the UK?

Also could the RN really operate 2 CVF simultaneously? Because that's something which when you actually look at potential airgroups, seems VERY cool.

<helpless shrug> Any figures for CVF uptime are wild guess work until funded. I don't think both carriers will operate simultaneously on very many occasions if ever.

I'd suggest however, that whichever side didn't have a carrier working would deploy some assets to shore up the carrier battle group constituted around whichever working carrier was out. We don't have the aircraft to operate both carriers in a fixed wing config anyway, let alone crews, unless you count token shows of force made while we transition between carriers.

We technically should be able to generate more of a carrier as available than the French - hull numbers do the trick every time, and 2 is still more than 1, even in this topsy turvy world we're in.


In short, it *really* depends - depends on political will, low level desire to co-operate, and a common need.

Dream team, CdG running alongside one of the CvF's, Rafales and F35B's in the air, with AEW and AAR on tap, AWD provided by T45 and Horizon, voila, a very dangerous Euro capability, with a solid "kick in the door, take and hold ground" capability that most countries on the face of the planet would swallow hard and think twice about tangling with.

We'll see.

 

[RobWilliams]

Chuck in an Astute + Rubis (or Barracuda, in the future) with TLAM + MdCN and it's even better.

EDIT: Rubis can't carry MdCN, so it'll be the Barracude chucking those in the future

Wasn't really expecting to get much concrete info, just a gut reaction really

When I was talking about airgroups, I wasn't thinking 2 x 36 F35B + 2 x 4 MASC, I was thinking more along the lines of TAGs including F35B, Apache, Merlin (ASW + HC4), MASC + Chinook, one awesome amphibious force right there.

Although I have to say I don't share the opinions of some doom merchants who predict the "We'll get 48 now, and see how it goes" will transition into "Nah, we'll just get 48 tops" one bit. That's a massive drop from ~140 down to 48, a little too big to be believable IMO. down to ~90 I could understand.

 

[1805]

Chuck in an Astute + Rubis (or Barracuda, in the future) with TLAM + MdCN and it's even better.

EDIT: Rubis can't carry MdCN, so it'll be the Barracude chucking those in the future

Wasn't really expecting to get much concrete info, just a gut reaction really

When I was talking about airgroups, I wasn't thinking 2 x 36 F35B + 2 x 4 MASC, I was thinking more along the lines of TAGs including F35B, Apache, Merlin (ASW + HC4), MASC + Chinook, one awesome amphibious force right there.

Although I have to say I don't share the opinions of some doom merchants who predict the "We'll get 48 now, and see how it goes" will transition into "Nah, we'll just get 48 tops" one bit. That's a massive drop from ~140 down to 48, a little too big to be believable IMO. down to ~90 I could understand.

Numbers of F35b over time, could easily be c90, as they are likely to replace the Tornado fleet along with the by then long forgotten FA2, GR9s (200+ aircraft). The financial position is much better now for the MOD and over the next 10 years better control should mean there is the money. I am sure funding for a modest number of P8 (say 6-8) can also be available.