From the number bought, & the number believed to have been fired, we have enough Storm Shadow in stock to cover 3a, 3b & 4, & probably quite a lot left over. Unless we need longer range, or some other ability that it's impractical to add to Storm Shadow, there doesn't seem to be any near-term need for a new air-launched cruise missile.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
1805 did actually say "starting from a blank sheet of paper" to be fair and was more talking about which 'service' - for want of a better word - should get the lions share of said missiles rather than the specific type.
Hi
150 would more than double the number originally purchased and maintained during my time, as to 9 per SSN all I would say is that figure does not or rather did not constitute a Bravo load for an SSN.
As to the future I would like to see as much commonality as possible in our purchase strategy with the weapons deployed to which ever unit requires it. Having said that an updated mix of storm shadow and tomahawk has a lot to be said for it.
Deepsixteen
Yeah the figures I had rattling around my head were around 60, looking back at one of ADMk2 a couple of days ago the UK has bought 153 TLAM in total, 48 TLAM Blk III and 105 TLAM Blk IV. The 60 figure was - I think - a given figure for the current stock of TLAM, but i'm not sure if this was pre/post Libya
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/United Kingdom 02-12.pdf
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/UnitedKingdom_03-36.pdf
It's a devilishly tricky issue, the closest we could get to trying to get 'full' commonality would be to throw out TLAM and order MdCN for surface/sub-surface launch. But that brings with it other issues.
IMO we won't see true commonality until Perseus in it's proposed air/surface/sub-surface launch configurations comes across the board. But even then it's not comparable to either TLAM or MdCN as a naval cruise missile in terms of land attack.
side note: sorry that I keep banging on about Perseus, but I just really like what I see so far
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/United Kingdom 02-12.pdf
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/UnitedKingdom_03-36.pdf
It's a devilishly tricky issue, the closest we could get to trying to get 'full' commonality would be to throw out TLAM and order MdCN for surface/sub-surface launch. But that brings with it other issues.
IMO we won't see true commonality until Perseus in it's proposed air/surface/sub-surface launch configurations comes across the board. But even then it's not comparable to either TLAM or MdCN as a naval cruise missile in terms of land attack.
side note: sorry that I keep banging on about Perseus, but I just really like what I see so far
There is another one I missed, land based launchers for the RA, although I can't see a requirement for many/any, there is a long range/single ceil version of MLRS.
I think SSN provide a useful capability, able to move fast, and deliver a powerful accurate blow....the sniper! I don't think it should be its core role, we have limited numbers and our ability to project power is dependent on being safe from other subs, which should be the main focus. I think 10-15% stocks is right.
3(a), 3(b) & 4 are pretty much the same I guess, and should probably take the lions share, say 45-50%. I think 4 has real potential, particularly when the Tornado leave service, but I suspect the RAF regard it as a threat to fast jets, a bit like the RN and OPV/frigates!
2, I find the most interesting one, and much debated here; could surface ships take on much of the work of the fast jets, as their numbers decline. This could leave them to focus on the more tactic support work.
I can see a number of advantages: accessible to most areas, fast reaction time, able to maintain a continuous patrol/threat, cheaper to operate/maintain and able to carry heavy numbers. An issue raised before is the inability to reload at sea, I am not sure what impact this would have, (I don't know the process for reloading but must take the ship out?).
Since this was raise sometime back, I have wondered is VLS the only/best answer for launching cruise missiles. VLS have massive advantages for SAM: reaction time/never being compromised when reloading, but I would think these are of less importance to an offensive weapon. I am not suggesting a return to a huge missile priming approach, like the old Sea Slug, taking up the whole ship. More a palletized model, maybe even the ability to change warheads? Missiles could be fired from a ramp elevated up to 45% to aid perfomance?
I think SSN provide a useful capability, able to move fast, and deliver a powerful accurate blow....the sniper! I don't think it should be its core role, we have limited numbers and our ability to project power is dependent on being safe from other subs, which should be the main focus. I think 10-15% stocks is right.
3(a), 3(b) & 4 are pretty much the same I guess, and should probably take the lions share, say 45-50%. I think 4 has real potential, particularly when the Tornado leave service, but I suspect the RAF regard it as a threat to fast jets, a bit like the RN and OPV/frigates!
2, I find the most interesting one, and much debated here; could surface ships take on much of the work of the fast jets, as their numbers decline. This could leave them to focus on the more tactic support work.
I can see a number of advantages: accessible to most areas, fast reaction time, able to maintain a continuous patrol/threat, cheaper to operate/maintain and able to carry heavy numbers. An issue raised before is the inability to reload at sea, I am not sure what impact this would have, (I don't know the process for reloading but must take the ship out?).
Since this was raise sometime back, I have wondered is VLS the only/best answer for launching cruise missiles. VLS have massive advantages for SAM: reaction time/never being compromised when reloading, but I would think these are of less importance to an offensive weapon. I am not suggesting a return to a huge missile priming approach, like the old Sea Slug, taking up the whole ship. More a palletized model, maybe even the ability to change warheads? Missiles could be fired from a ramp elevated up to 45% to aid perfomance?
The RA are quite happy with the GMLRS and FireShadow, interestingly with +30km range over GMLRS apparently.
Should be interesting to remember that FireShadow - from an older RN document which can't be found but I believe i've got it in an external HDD so i'll check in a few days - is designed to be physically compatable with the A50.
In regards to SSNs how one would be deployed was always going to be more dependent on the type of enemy we face, if they've got a serious fleet of both surface and sub-surface vessels then I'd like to think that the subs would be hunting them primarily. Then - once those threats are dealt with - they'd be freed up for TLAM strikes.
An expansion on current stocks would be good, but I wouldn't go crazy.
My thoughts exactly, the JSF - although really a joint asset - is meant to be officially under the command (or control) of the RAF I think? Meaning that - naval squadrons or not - the whole force will have a central stock to draw munitions from and IMO it'd be prudent to consider that aspect as one entity.
But like I said, AFAIK the F35 is considered as the Tornados replacement as far as manned aircraft goes. But once Tiffy gets fully kitted out then that area isn't one I'm particularly concerned about.
This was tweeted out by Gabriele of UKAFC
Completely forgot about this part of the refit, seems like it's been kept pretty quiet truth be told. It'll be good to see what the RN has to say about the radar when she starts trialling it.
Tried looking for articles about it, but all I could find was a mention in an older BAE article about Artisan
http://www.baesystems.com/article/B...7302968000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null
Completely forgot about this part of the refit, seems like it's been kept pretty quiet truth be told. It'll be good to see what the RN has to say about the radar when she starts trialling it.
I noticed that it had a ton of scaffolding all over the foremast & that Artisan was fitted, about a week for Christmas, when I was paying a visit to Pompey dockyard.
Could do with someone taking a picture from the ferry,as it goes past on the way to France, as the ship's right out on the wall....
SA
Last edited:
Blimey - so Artisan is going in independently of CAMM, presumably to be followed by CAMM in a bit ?
Ahhh . . SA holding out on us guys . . .
In regards to CAMM, I guess so. Looking on the RN profile for HMS Iron Duke all it talks about is upgrades to Sea Wolf due in this refit rather than replacing it with CAMM. Although bear in mind it didn't specifically mention the installation of Artisan either.
Have you guys seen how CAMM is going to be installed on the Type 23? In regards to the total area of the current Sea Wolf silo they're only installing silos on one half of that area, if this MBDA video is correct that is (skip till about 1:20)
Also, do you guys think the video shows some kind of Sylver VLS? It's certainly not single CAMM canisters, unless we're using 12 missiles for self defence. It certainly looks like it to me.
MBDA - e-catalogue
In regards to CAMM, I guess so. Looking on the RN profile for HMS Iron Duke all it talks about is upgrades to Sea Wolf due in this refit rather than replacing it with CAMM. Although bear in mind it didn't specifically mention the installation of Artisan either.
Have you guys seen how CAMM is going to be installed on the Type 23? In regards to the total area of the current Sea Wolf silo they're only installing silos on one half of that area, if this MBDA video is correct that is (skip till about 1:20)
Also, do you guys think the video shows some kind of Sylver VLS? It's certainly not single CAMM canisters, unless we're using 12 missiles for self defence
. It certainly looks like it to me.MBDA - e-catalogue
Last edited:
48 missiles, and the much greater range over Sea Wolf, really will transform the Type 23s. As some of these ships may serve on another 15-20 years, is would be good to see if anything else coud fit into that space left over. Maybe a VLS Fireshadow; if it was possible it would a great capabitity for say the 4-5 newest ships, even better if space could be found for a single Phalanx mounting on the centreline somewhere.
It looks a very smooth conversion (ok it is a video) but it bodes well for CAMM adoption by other VLS Sea Wolf users.
It looks a very smooth conversion (ok it is a video) but it bodes well for CAMM adoption by other VLS Sea Wolf users.
Thats if you can call 12 F35's a solid air wingI 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.
12 F35s deployed at peacetime when leaving UK waters. This DOESN'T include associated rotary assets of which there should be plenty.
Look at the peacetime airgroup of an Illustrious class carrier, AFAIK a deployment of 10 harriers in peacetime would be a luxury.
I was a bit down in the dumps about QE's airgroup - don't ask - but you've gotta think of it in context to how a US LHA operates, when you think about it like that IMO we're actually getting quite a nice flexible asset.
Look at the peacetime airgroup of an Illustrious class carrier, AFAIK a deployment of 10 harriers in peacetime would be a luxury.
I was a bit down in the dumps about QE's airgroup - don't ask - but you've gotta think of it in context to how a US LHA operates, when you think about it like that IMO we're actually getting quite a nice flexible asset.
t68
Well-Known Member
Just a quick question regarding the new QE carriers,
If as you say that the peace time allocation will only be 12 airframes for fixed wing ops. How does that affect the numbers for maintainers of aircraft onboard, would you still have a full complement of maintainers to the max of 36 fixed wing aircraft? What if there was a dire need for more aircraft and a ferry flight of an extra 18 aircraft came on board, with no long range COD how would the extra techies get on board if outside the range of helicopter support.
Would that not be a case for more aircraft(24) to be station on board permanently that can cover a more heightened threat matrix if unable to return to port for the extras, then have the flexibility for replacement carrier to have the same numbers and vice versa.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not knocking what you are doing as its better than nothing and more than what the RAN has to offer at the moment.
If as you say that the peace time allocation will only be 12 airframes for fixed wing ops. How does that affect the numbers for maintainers of aircraft onboard, would you still have a full complement of maintainers to the max of 36 fixed wing aircraft? What if there was a dire need for more aircraft and a ferry flight of an extra 18 aircraft came on board, with no long range COD how would the extra techies get on board if outside the range of helicopter support.
Would that not be a case for more aircraft(24) to be station on board permanently that can cover a more heightened threat matrix if unable to return to port for the extras, then have the flexibility for replacement carrier to have the same numbers and vice versa.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not knocking what you are doing as its better than nothing and more than what the RAN has to offer at the moment.
It will be 12 aircraft, Hammond told us that at a recent RUSI presentation.
I've got no idea as to what the plan will be for that, presumably the same sort of contingency plans put in place for the Illustrious class I suppose, whatever they may be.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the situation which would require those extra aircraft to be deployed. If it's a situation like Libya then the job would end up being done with the aircraft she has, backed up by land based aircraft. Indeed if such a situation did occur in the Middle East then I don't think it'd be impossible for maintainers to be flown to Italian airbases or Cyprus and then get picked up by the carrier?
I suspect the ultimate decision would be to AAR the aircraft onto the carrier and the carrier steams towards the nearest suitable location to pick up maintainers via helo - be it Merlin HC4 or Chinook - from a location ashore who've been transported out there. There wouldn't be anything stopping a Merlin lily-padding across friendly assets topping up fuel to get that extra reach I guess?
Dispatch a frigate/RFA asset packed with maintainers to get picked up to the carrier?
Of course, this is all suppositon, I could easily be wide of the mark. I probably am (so I apologise to those who're in the know and are cringing while reading it) , I have to say it's not something i've particularly thought of. I suppose my main supposition was that if there was a situation which would require that many fast jets on a deployment that they would be deployed. That's the beauty of the TAG, if it's thought that fixed wing assets are more appropriate for that deployment then more will be deployed at the cost of less rotary assets.
I've got no idea as to what the plan will be for that, presumably the same sort of contingency plans put in place for the Illustrious class I suppose, whatever they may be.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the situation which would require those extra aircraft to be deployed. If it's a situation like Libya then the job would end up being done with the aircraft she has, backed up by land based aircraft. Indeed if such a situation did occur in the Middle East then I don't think it'd be impossible for maintainers to be flown to Italian airbases or Cyprus and then get picked up by the carrier?
I suspect the ultimate decision would be to AAR the aircraft onto the carrier and the carrier steams towards the nearest suitable location to pick up maintainers via helo - be it Merlin HC4 or Chinook - from a location ashore who've been transported out there. There wouldn't be anything stopping a Merlin lily-padding across friendly assets topping up fuel to get that extra reach I guess?
Dispatch a frigate/RFA asset packed with maintainers to get picked up to the carrier?
Of course, this is all suppositon, I could easily be wide of the mark. I probably am (so I apologise to those who're in the know and are cringing while reading it) , I have to say it's not something i've particularly thought of. I suppose my main supposition was that if there was a situation which would require that many fast jets on a deployment that they would be deployed. That's the beauty of the TAG, if it's thought that fixed wing assets are more appropriate for that deployment then more will be deployed at the cost of less rotary assets.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yeah of course
, I have been thinking about this if the extras are needed then it’s just not a matter of extra maintainers its also fuel, stores, weapons etcetera. If she could not return to port for these all these extra items will be done by RAS, do the new oilers being built in South Korea have provisions for extra passengers which then could transfer by helicopter?
AFAIK the plan is a Tide class tanker will go with the QEC on every deployment, however technically there should be a tanker assigned to the RFTG but when it deployed to the Med in 2012 it wasn't there, so that's a bit iffy.
The figures given by BMT for the Tide class is accommodation for "63 crew and 46 non-crew embarked persons". I don't know if RFA assets carry a RM detachment, but if they do then chances are they take up most of the extra space, but overload conditions could be imposed for a limited time. It's also unclear if the aircrew which the ship will carry counts as 'crew' or not, if the tankers embark a helo.
Can't forget that the Type 45 is designed for another 40 or so more than the ships crew. Probably similar for the Type 26 when it comes about.
Then there's also however the new SSS designs turn out, when they finally come about.
Although that being said, the carrier may decide to thin out the maintainers per airframe to get more jobs done. It's harder work for the rest but if that's what needs to be done them the RN could get it done.
EDIT: But like I say, i've got no real idea. I'd love to hear what people in the know think about it.
The figures given by BMT for the Tide class is accommodation for "63 crew and 46 non-crew embarked persons". I don't know if RFA assets carry a RM detachment, but if they do then chances are they take up most of the extra space, but overload conditions could be imposed for a limited time. It's also unclear if the aircrew which the ship will carry counts as 'crew' or not, if the tankers embark a helo.
Can't forget that the Type 45 is designed for another 40 or so more than the ships crew. Probably similar for the Type 26 when it comes about.
Then there's also however the new SSS designs turn out, when they finally come about.
Although that being said, the carrier may decide to thin out the maintainers per airframe to get more jobs done. It's harder work for the rest but if that's what needs to be done them the RN could get it done.
EDIT: But like I say, i've got no real idea. I'd love to hear what people in the know think about it.
Even with "only" 48 aircraft (assuming more aren't ordered) any contingency operation would surely see more aircraft flown out to the carrier?
I can imagine that up to 24 aircraft "could" be deployed without overly stretching such a fleet for a short term contingency, particularly given your entire air defence capability for your nation isn't provided by this fleet.
24 F-35B's, 2-3 AEW Sea Kings, 2-3 ASW/ASuW helicopters, 4-6 Apaches and 4-6 utility helicopters would appear to be a likely deployment capability and a very useful addition to any taskforce.
Anixtu
New Member
63 will be for the core RFA complement in Merchant standard cabins. Most of the 46 will be RN standard accommodation for embarked flight, force protection team, etc.