I would probably have a go at fitting them so some of the upgraded FV432.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Well it depends in the RN has remembered to bring the helicopters with the Skuas, if they have Merlins then maybe they could fire the 84mm from the open door?
You're being deliberately obtuse - Swerves post explicitly *suggests* sending Wildcat with SeaSkua. To turn around and then wonder aloud if they'd remember to bring said missiles is bordering on trolling.
As is parroting away about using a recoilless rifle from inside a helicopter...
I was pointing out again, the RN are building inflexible with the Lynx/Merlin mix. Both should carry an anti ship missile. Why do we even have the 2 types.
I've got to agree with you there, i'd absolutely love to see FASGW(H) integrated on the Merlins. AFAIK the only reason Sea Skua currently isn't is because the money just hasn't been put up.
The RN operates 2 types of aircraft because the idea was that the Lynx would serve on ships too small to accommodate Sea King back in the day. It brings an interesting advantage these days in that - with the Type 45 - you can pick between either a Merlin or 2 Lynx.
It's not particularly flexible, from my own experiences the Type 45s will typically embark the Lynx - due to difficiencies in other areas of the ship - which leads to an assumption that the Type 23s embark the Merlin. In either case the ship has an AShM capability albeit of a different size.
The RN operates 2 types of aircraft because the idea was that the Lynx would serve on ships too small to accommodate Sea King back in the day. It brings an interesting advantage these days in that - with the Type 45 - you can pick between either a Merlin or 2 Lynx.
It's not particularly flexible, from my own experiences the Type 45s will typically embark the Lynx - due to difficiencies in other areas of the ship - which leads to an assumption that the Type 23s embark the Merlin. In either case the ship has an AShM capability albeit of a different size.
I understand the logic of the Lynx, but since the Type 23 all ships have been built with hangers to handle Merlin. So why spend all that money on the Wildcat; it would have been cheaper to have built more Merlins, which certainly look like they have further export potential than the Wildcat.
As for the Type 45, the boat arrangements seem to have taken priority over the helicopter arrangements! Two Merlins should have been the option.
I wouldn't agree with you on that, taking a quick scan over Wiki the Merlin has 10 international operators, compared to the Lynx's 12. Now I know it doesn't directly translate into the chances of the Wildcat, but when those nations look to update their inventory and they're happy with what they Lynx offers then chances are they'll look at what the Wildcat has to offer.
Considering more Merlins isn't coming about and neither is any AShM integration on her, I think the Wildcat offers a brilliant capability. Looking at the combat history of the Lynx, then imagine the same with the Wildcat which will supposedly be able to carry twice the number of FASGW(H) with a larger warhead and twice the range of Sea Skua, a perfect tool for dealing with FAC.
But I dunno, personally i'm quite happy with the current mix. A fleet of only Merlins would be interesting no doubt, but i'm quite happy with the fleet as it stands. If anything my only concern is that the fleet will be hard pushed to pack out all the ships she's designed to fit in.
Considering more Merlins isn't coming about and neither is any AShM integration on her, I think the Wildcat offers a brilliant capability. Looking at the combat history of the Lynx, then imagine the same with the Wildcat which will supposedly be able to carry twice the number of FASGW(H) with a larger warhead and twice the range of Sea Skua, a perfect tool for dealing with FAC.
But I dunno, personally i'm quite happy with the current mix. A fleet of only Merlins would be interesting no doubt, but i'm quite happy with the fleet as it stands. If anything my only concern is that the fleet will be hard pushed to pack out all the ships she's designed to fit in.
The market has moved on a lot since the days of the Lynx, there has been a move to heavier, multrole machines. Added to this greater competition generally and the Wildcat is also not cheap. If they pick up any operators it's likely to be small scales ones. If the French rat on FASGW(H), I would abandon it and go straight for NSM, this looks a winner.
No conspiracy, they thought they could do a better job if they were running the show but when money got tight they stuck with what they saw as the better or more important capability. Had it been a deliberate act it would have been done better so as not to leave themselve open to critism and accussations of failure then having capabilities striped from them and returned to the other services.
I know the Jaguar was not a purple asset, it was however a superb CAS platform, probably superior to the Harrier, and was missed more by the Army than the RAF. The real shame was the Jag was an icon in sustainability with the upgrade and support model adopted, using MOTS solutions to counter obsolescence issues support costs were dropping as performance was improving, it could have easily and affordably served until the Typhoon if not the F-35 was ready to replace it.
ESM, the helicopter (not necessarily 1600k but definitely beyond the range of usual weapons) UAV's, other ships, allied capabilities, land based spotters, subs, the list goes on and on.
I can well imagine that. Few military services like having their toys taken from them.
Any wartime usage will have to be supplemented. From my reviews as far as publicly admitted, the UK has only ever purchased about 150 Tomahawks (48 Block III Tomahawks in it's initial acquisition, a $122m support and 105 TacTom Block IV's)
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/United Kingdom 02-12.pdf
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/UnitedKingdom_03-36.pdf
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2007/UK_08-13.pdf
True, but both capabilities are in-service and effectively duplicate one another. As does Harpoon, it was your earlier point that "adding more" doesn't "add anything we don't already have" it was addressing.
How would it compromise it? Can the Type 45 not perform it's area air warfare function if it had a long range land attack capability? Can your Astutes not perform their traditional sub roles, even though they have Tomahawk? Are they deployed differently JUST because they have Tomahawk? I think not...
You are obviously envisaging that because a Type 45 has a particular capability different than now it would necessarily be deployed differently than now. I don't see that being the case, especially given I started by proposing primarily that Tomahawk be added for the latest variants capability to engage in anti-ship missions. How would this additional capability effect the Type 45's role any more than Harpoon would? The land attack capability is simply bang for buck.
Again, that's not what the RN wanted and it's only allocated funding so far and inter-service politics that has meant it hasn't already happened.
Which of course assumes you deploy all your Tomahawks with your subs and you don't have ANY warstock in the UK... Given the last acquisition was in 2003 and RN has fired a few since then, I suspect a new order WILL eventuate in the not too distant future.
Block 1B is the new capability, not Phalanx and the UK has spent $137m on acquiring this new capability...
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2011/UK_11-12.pdf
Well short of a request, we can only speculate on the cost. I choose to do so, based on the costs of the UK's previous acquisitions and similar foreign acquisitions.
The cost of modifying the Type 45's is the unknown. The cost of Tomahawk, TTWCS, support and acquisition of the Mk.41 VLS can be inferred reasonably accurately.
Out of interest, more than mere speculation has occurred in modifying the Type 45's to accept Mk.41 VLS. GKN in the UK has held extensive discussions with L-M about this matter and has acquired the local licence for Mk.41 capability from L-M so it is certainly seen as a strong possibility by more than just me.
On the contrary, I don't think anything of the sort and have acknowledged plenty of times already here, that I "get" the intent behind fitting Harpoon. I shouldn't really have to re-quote myself to make that clear again...
My point is that Tomahawk fitting to the Type 45's would appear to be a more worthwhile exercise that is in no way beyond the UK's means, even in the tight fiscal climate they are currently in.
I don't see that it would detract from it's role any more than they do on the USA's Arleigh Burke Class, than they would have on Holland's De Zeven Provincien frigates, (if they'd continued with them) on Spain's F-105's or on Australia's AWD's (in future).
If such a capability is to be fitted to the Type frigates, enabling such will also cause most of your arguments to evaporate as well namely warstock, deployments and so on.
Changed circumstances change arguments. I've consistently qualified what I've said, saying that it is true in current circumstances, where we have (consistently since the 1990s) kept a stock of TLAM smaller than our ability to deploy it. If policy changed & it was decided to increase our stock, then of course that would change the calculations on the value of additional launchers.
My argument has always been that adding more launchers, without adding more missiles, when we already have more launchers than missiles, is pointless. Of course, that changes if policy changes & we increase the number of missiles considerably. But so far, it hasn't.
I've also argued against you equating the fitting of Harpoon (in inventory, ship fitted for, would otherwise be stored, support the main role of the ship) & Phalanx 1B (refurbished from inventory, ship fitted for, would otherwise be stored, support the main role of the ship) to T45 with the installation of Mk41 VLS (not in inventory, ship not fitted for, rounds for them can all be deployed without them, add a new role). I don't know why you don't just concede that, since it's a no-brainer. Different categories. I see now you're trying to back down by saying that you always acknowledged the difference, but this is hard to believe from the way you've argued. You've explicitly linked them to your argument for adding Mk 41 & TLAM.
In addition, I've argued that the anti-ship capability of Tomahawk which you are so keen on is so restricted in usability that I'm not convinced of its value, but that's a separate issue. You speak of land-based spotters, allied ships, etc., but I think you're failing to see the context. I find it hard to envisage a naval war in which we'd have all these assets, but need Tomahawk to reach out & hit enemy ships because of a lack of anything closer. We're the ones likely to be worrying about discriminating between friendly & hostile ships, even when we're operating close to an enemy coast. Where we have coast watchers, 99.9% of the ships offshore would probably be strictly off limits. Anti-ship Tomahawk seems to me to be a weapon better suited to the old Soviet navy than the RN. And yes, I know it'd be better at discriminating than the old anti-ship Tomahawk.
Storm Shadow & TLAM don't duplicate capabilities in British service. There's an overlap, but there are important differences. TLAM allows us to hit targets we can't reach with Storm Shadow (& that's its real value to the UK), but the unit price we've paid for Storm Shadow is less, & where we have an air base within reach, it's more flexible in use. It made sense to buy a lot of Storm Shadow, plus a smaller number of the more expensive TLAM for those hard to reach targets.
You keep saying I'm assuming that all of X is deployed in Y way. This is a misunderstanding. What I've done is point out that we can deploy all of X in Y way (something very different), & therefore the argument that we also need to be able to deploy it in Z way is weak. To me, this is so obvious that it took me a while to fully grasp your argument & reply to it properly. I hope it is now clear.
I accept that it would not be necessary to deploy T45 differently because it carried TLAM as well as SAMs, but to me, when it's defending other ships from air attack it's constrained in its ability to deploy to the best locations for launching TLAM from, & vice versa. Sometimes, obviously, it won't matter. Everything it might want to attack will be within range. But not always. Therefore, it isn't the best platform. Unless we can afford to fit cruise missiles to all our escorts, we should fit them to GP ships rather than AAW ships.
The Dutch, Spanish & Australians don't have other ships they might fit cruise missiles to, so this argument does not apply to them. The Arleigh Burkes are far more numerous, & perform roles the RN gives to frigates, as well as AAW.
Harpoon is completely different, since its purpose is to defend the T45 and whatever it is with from attack. It's different in kind - like a CIWS. It's fulfilling the same purpose as the T45's primary weapons. It enables the T45 to perform its main role better, not add another role. Fitting TLAM is adding another role to the ship, one that is already done by other platforms.
The RN would ideally like all of its ships to be able to do everything, but understands (though I fear not always as well as it should) that it can't have everything it would like. Yes, it'd like to put cruise missiles on T45 & T26 as well as SSNs. But ask it what else it would give up to get that, & I think you'd find that those Mk 41s are a long way down the list of priorities.
My argument has always been that adding more launchers, without adding more missiles, when we already have more launchers than missiles, is pointless. Of course, that changes if policy changes & we increase the number of missiles considerably. But so far, it hasn't.
I've also argued against you equating the fitting of Harpoon (in inventory, ship fitted for, would otherwise be stored, support the main role of the ship) & Phalanx 1B (refurbished from inventory, ship fitted for, would otherwise be stored, support the main role of the ship) to T45 with the installation of Mk41 VLS (not in inventory, ship not fitted for, rounds for them can all be deployed without them, add a new role). I don't know why you don't just concede that, since it's a no-brainer. Different categories. I see now you're trying to back down by saying that you always acknowledged the difference, but this is hard to believe from the way you've argued. You've explicitly linked them to your argument for adding Mk 41 & TLAM.
In addition, I've argued that the anti-ship capability of Tomahawk which you are so keen on is so restricted in usability that I'm not convinced of its value, but that's a separate issue. You speak of land-based spotters, allied ships, etc., but I think you're failing to see the context. I find it hard to envisage a naval war in which we'd have all these assets, but need Tomahawk to reach out & hit enemy ships because of a lack of anything closer. We're the ones likely to be worrying about discriminating between friendly & hostile ships, even when we're operating close to an enemy coast. Where we have coast watchers, 99.9% of the ships offshore would probably be strictly off limits. Anti-ship Tomahawk seems to me to be a weapon better suited to the old Soviet navy than the RN. And yes, I know it'd be better at discriminating than the old anti-ship Tomahawk.
Storm Shadow & TLAM don't duplicate capabilities in British service. There's an overlap, but there are important differences. TLAM allows us to hit targets we can't reach with Storm Shadow (& that's its real value to the UK), but the unit price we've paid for Storm Shadow is less, & where we have an air base within reach, it's more flexible in use. It made sense to buy a lot of Storm Shadow, plus a smaller number of the more expensive TLAM for those hard to reach targets.
You keep saying I'm assuming that all of X is deployed in Y way. This is a misunderstanding. What I've done is point out that we can deploy all of X in Y way (something very different), & therefore the argument that we also need to be able to deploy it in Z way is weak. To me, this is so obvious that it took me a while to fully grasp your argument & reply to it properly. I hope it is now clear.
I accept that it would not be necessary to deploy T45 differently because it carried TLAM as well as SAMs, but to me, when it's defending other ships from air attack it's constrained in its ability to deploy to the best locations for launching TLAM from, & vice versa. Sometimes, obviously, it won't matter. Everything it might want to attack will be within range. But not always. Therefore, it isn't the best platform. Unless we can afford to fit cruise missiles to all our escorts, we should fit them to GP ships rather than AAW ships.
The Dutch, Spanish & Australians don't have other ships they might fit cruise missiles to, so this argument does not apply to them. The Arleigh Burkes are far more numerous, & perform roles the RN gives to frigates, as well as AAW.
Harpoon is completely different, since its purpose is to defend the T45 and whatever it is with from attack. It's different in kind - like a CIWS. It's fulfilling the same purpose as the T45's primary weapons. It enables the T45 to perform its main role better, not add another role. Fitting TLAM is adding another role to the ship, one that is already done by other platforms.
The RN would ideally like all of its ships to be able to do everything, but understands (though I fear not always as well as it should) that it can't have everything it would like. Yes, it'd like to put cruise missiles on T45 & T26 as well as SSNs. But ask it what else it would give up to get that, & I think you'd find that those Mk 41s are a long way down the list of priorities.
spsun100001
New Member
I completely agree that fitting Phalanx and Harpoon to the T45 is sensible. The incremental cost is low as the items are already in our inventory and the ships were designed to take them. I'd rather that the kit to launch Harpoon was put on all six ships giving us the flexibility to put the missiles on whichever ships deployment environment requires it rather than what seems to be the plan which is to fit it to only four vessels.
Omitting an ASuW missile from the T45 was always criminal in my view given that we often deploy them on their own (e.g. the Gulf) and the lack of that capability required them to carry Lynx rather than Merlin thus also leading to a degraded ASW capability.
As to Tomahawk, then reading all of the posts made, it does seem sensible to me if we could afford more missiles to prioritise them on the T26 as it will be far easier to design them onto a ship that's not build yet than spend considerable sums adapting the T45.
In fact, I'd put buying the NSM for the F35 ahead of putting Tomahawk on the T45. It is ludicrous to have a carrier that can't attack any ship that has an area defence SAM system without it's aircraft having to fly into the SAM envelope to deliver an LGB. I know Astute SSN's are often put forward as the carrier strike groups primary ASuW weapon but (even assuming the reports about their speed problems aren't true) we have limited numbers of them and I'd rather they were undertaking ASW protection than waste them on ASuW which can be done far more cost effectively through a pair of F35's with 2 NSM each.
Omitting an ASuW missile from the T45 was always criminal in my view given that we often deploy them on their own (e.g. the Gulf) and the lack of that capability required them to carry Lynx rather than Merlin thus also leading to a degraded ASW capability.
As to Tomahawk, then reading all of the posts made, it does seem sensible to me if we could afford more missiles to prioritise them on the T26 as it will be far easier to design them onto a ship that's not build yet than spend considerable sums adapting the T45.
In fact, I'd put buying the NSM for the F35 ahead of putting Tomahawk on the T45. It is ludicrous to have a carrier that can't attack any ship that has an area defence SAM system without it's aircraft having to fly into the SAM envelope to deliver an LGB. I know Astute SSN's are often put forward as the carrier strike groups primary ASuW weapon but (even assuming the reports about their speed problems aren't true) we have limited numbers of them and I'd rather they were undertaking ASW protection than waste them on ASuW which can be done far more cost effectively through a pair of F35's with 2 NSM each.
Last edited:
Obvious choice, but not being considered for the UK sadly, that's straight from the horses mouth.
I'd like to see an air-launched Perseus on the F35, which - considering it's down to be the replacement for Storm Shadow - doesn't seem particularly unlikely IMO.
EDIT: This time next year we'll be looking at a structurally complete HMS Queen Elizabeth
I'd like to see an air-launched Perseus on the F35, which - considering it's down to be the replacement for Storm Shadow - doesn't seem particularly unlikely IMO.
EDIT: This time next year we'll be looking at a structurally complete HMS Queen Elizabeth
I am so envious, in ideal world Australia would be looking forward to the completion of their own Queen Elizabeth to replace HMAS Australia (ex HMS Invincible) after three decades of stirling service. Capable, affordable and a real game changer; the addition of this type of ship is the difference between a first and a second (or even third) tier navy.
The Camberra's, AWD, F35a and the future sub programme will give Australia an awesome capability.
I think most of us are jumping with excitement about the idea of a QE in the water, we've had to sit through so much rubbish from the press about them being pointless, being sold off, scrapped, and we've had such a painful journey to this point with the CATOBAR flip flop. Having a couple of decent size carriers on tap with a solid air wing on board will put us quite comfortably into top 3 in the world in terms of all around capability I suspect. Ok, so there's a looong gap between number 1 and the rest of the field but hey
It's a shame Australia isn't in the fixed wing game but things are looking up with suggestions of another AWD, the Hobarts are looking to be pretty powerful capital units and there's some nice technology going into the Anzacs.
In a few months the forward island will be being attached, then she'll REALLY start looking like an aircraft carrier, big things for the RN this year.
*HMS Astute was launched nearly 3 years before commission, Ambush was roughly 2 years so considering HMS Artful's ISD is 2015 IMO it's not impossible for her to be launched in 2013
- Structurally complete HMS Queen Elizabeth
- HMS Ambush due to be commissioned
- HMS Duncan handed over to the RN
- HMS Astute declared operational
- HMS Defender due to be commissioned
- HMS Artful launched*
*HMS Astute was launched nearly 3 years before commission, Ambush was roughly 2 years so considering HMS Artful's ISD is 2015 IMO it's not impossible for her to be launched in 2013
Looking back at the recent posts on cruise missiles, it strikes me there are a number of options potentially coming up, even allowing for the current sunk investment in existing platforms/missiles.
However putting that to one side and the specific brand of missile, it would be interesting to get peoples thoughts on the optimum mix of missile numbers/platforms; if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper. Below are the options I can think of, but I may have missed some:
1, SSN based.
2, Surface ship
3(a), High performance attack aircraft land based
3(b), High performance attack aircraft carrier based
4, A concept such as the non penetrating part of the FOAS maybe MRTT instead of A400M.
If we were buying 1000 missiles over say next 15-18 years, were would it be best to invest in, taking into account the +/-s of various platforms, to meet operational capability/flexibility and cost effectiveness?
However putting that to one side and the specific brand of missile, it would be interesting to get peoples thoughts on the optimum mix of missile numbers/platforms; if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper. Below are the options I can think of, but I may have missed some:
1, SSN based.
2, Surface ship
3(a), High performance attack aircraft land based
3(b), High performance attack aircraft carrier based
4, A concept such as the non penetrating part of the FOAS maybe MRTT instead of A400M.
If we were buying 1000 missiles over say next 15-18 years, were would it be best to invest in, taking into account the +/-s of various platforms, to meet operational capability/flexibility and cost effectiveness?
I'm gunna say
1 - 150
2 - 250
3(a) - 300
3(b) - 125
4 - 175
*Although i'm not currently aware on the status of the FOAS program - AFAIK it's been cancelled and has really been rolled into the F-35 aquisition so then chances are 4 would get lumped into 3(a) in any case as one large stock which can be drawn upon. The idea of Taranis taking up that gauntlet in the future is interesting.
But then in regards to the naval aspect. That's how i'd space it out, the reason the surface ships get a larger cut is because there'll ultimately be nearly twice the number of platforms it can be launched from in comparison to SSNs who also have a larger capacity for cruise missiles than a SSN would carry on a normal basis.
Expansion - IIRC 150 would be an expansion? - on the SSN stocks can only be a bonus, AFAIK for Libya there was ~9 TLAM available per sub.
Feel free to maul those numbers *puts on helmet and runs for the bunker*
1 - 150
2 - 250
3(a) - 300
3(b) - 125
4 - 175
*Although i'm not currently aware on the status of the FOAS program - AFAIK it's been cancelled and has really been rolled into the F-35 aquisition so then chances are 4 would get lumped into 3(a) in any case as one large stock which can be drawn upon. The idea of Taranis taking up that gauntlet in the future is interesting.
But then in regards to the naval aspect. That's how i'd space it out, the reason the surface ships get a larger cut is because there'll ultimately be nearly twice the number of platforms it can be launched from in comparison to SSNs who also have a larger capacity for cruise missiles than a SSN would carry on a normal basis.
Expansion - IIRC 150 would be an expansion? - on the SSN stocks can only be a bonus, AFAIK for Libya there was ~9 TLAM available per sub.
Feel free to maul those numbers *puts on helmet and runs for the bunker*
Last edited: