The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[FluffyThoughts]

...currenttly type 23 only carries 8 harpoon....

Sorry, but why?

:hands-up:

I don't like that Danish boat that can carry sixteen Harpoons. Why should three boats be equipped with sixteen harpoons apiece (when all-but-one will be on active duty)?

The wrong questions seem to be answered and the pertinent thoughts ignored. Could a single frigate fight Jutland? The answer is no....

 

[RobWilliams]

If the French don't move soon, I think it would be better to make a value comparison with NSM to proceeding on our own. At 410kg and 125kg warhead, it offers the opportunity to phase out Harpoon? FASGW(l) might give the scope for the FASGW(H) requirement to be heavier, than currently planned. Agreed it would add significantly capability, if either weapon was fitted to Merlin.

It does offer the opportunity to replace Harpoon, but IMO the replacement will be factored in by the MOD to be whatever they pick to jam in the Type 26 so whatever will go on the Wildcat should be a replacement for Sea Skua.

Not to mention that the NSM is a particularly hefty missile, 4 x heavier than FASGW(H) and probably incredibly overkill for what the RN wants to do with the helos, IMO heavyweight AShMs should be on the heavyweight platforms. I'm not even sure how feasible it'd be to do it, but i've got nothing to back that feeling up.

In terms of a replacement for Sea Skua, FASGW(H) looks like it's going to be a decent incremental step up. But the sticking point is the French.

People are throwing out that the Wildcat might spend the first 5 years unarmed. Now in terms of FASGW(H) that could be true, but the MOD has put down an order for 1000 LMM so it'll have teeth.

 

[1805]

It does offer the opportunity to replace Harpoon, but IMO the replacement will be factored in by the MOD to be whatever they pick to jam in the Type 26 so whatever will go on the Wildcat should be a replacement for Sea Skua.

Not to mention that the NSM is a particularly hefty missile, 4 x heavier than FASGW(H) and probably incredibly overkill for what the RN wants to do with the helos, IMO heavyweight AShMs should be on the heavyweight platforms. I'm not even sure how feasible it'd be to do it, but i've got nothing to back that feeling up.

In terms of a replacement for Sea Skua, FASGW(H) looks like it's going to be a decent incremental step up. But the sticking point is the French.

People are throwing out that the Wildcat might spend the first 5 years unarmed. Now in terms of FASGW(H) that could be true, but the MOD has put down an order for 1000 LMM so it'll have teeth.

I agree a heavier missiles but with LMM available as well is there the need for 4 missile, in the days of Skua there was no light option. One missile will do a lot more damage and can sort pretty much anything we would run into. A Merlin could mange 4 NSM, a very powerful combination.

I like FASGW(H) but if there are issues with the French funding, I would buy off the shelf, certainly if it is cheaper (worth a study at least) and could be in service quickly.

The more I think about it, the more I struggle with why the Navy went down the Lynx upgrade to Wildcat route. Full appreciate "we are where we are" and its not a bad helicopter...but why?

 

[Volkodav]

Would it be worth going for a mix of lighter rocket based missiles, DAGR, APKWS, LOGIR, GATR, and a larger weapon, Penguin, Exocet, Marte 2, or modern alternative, if the FASGW stalls due to financial reasons?

 

[JOHNOLIE]

I agree a heavier missiles but with LMM available as well is there the need for 4 missile, in the days of Skua there was no light option. One missile will do a lot more damage and can sort pretty much anything we would run into. A Merlin could mange 4 NSM, a very powerful combination.

I like FASGW(H) but if there are issues with the French funding, I would buy off the shelf, certainly if it is cheaper (worth a study at least) and could be in service quickly.

The more I think about it, the more I struggle with why the Navy went down the Lynx upgrade to Wildcat route. Full appreciate "we are where we are" and its not a bad helicopter...but why?

Wildcat Lynx is partly about the cancelation of batch 2 Merlin mk1 and no batch 2 Apache. As soon as big Tony cancelled the planned batch 2 buy of 22 Merlin mk1s in 1997 the MoD announced the conversion of an additional 8 (i think) Lynx mk3 to mk8.
It was originally propose that the Sea King mk6 and Lynx mk8 fleets were to be replace with 66 Merlin mk1s, in the end 44 Merlin mk1s in batch 1 were completed so a new plan was required. In hindsight 66 expensive anti submarine helicopters seems like overkill, although 22 of somthing more basic at a time when Merlin airframe could have been reletively cheap makes some sense.
The above decision promted Westlands/MoD to look at a major airframe/avionics upgrade for the Lynx, the design for the engine/oily bits/whirly bits had largely been completed for the proposed T800 powered Lynx 300 and variants leading up to it. I am not sure of the detail but I belive some similar logic applied to Apache and the Armys Wildcat buy.
There were some pretty good ideas from Westlands (a much under-rated outfit) that were turned down by the MoD at the time. Including a night vision compatable cockpit for Merlin mk1 in common with Merlin mk3, which would have ment a change in coloured plastic and a few other bits and would have saved money due to the higher quantitys procured, building Merlin mk3 for but not with blade/tail fold causing a minor cost/weight penalty, a simplified so cheaper Merlin mk1 with a ramp ie no expensive sub hunting gear, and many other good ideas which over the last 15 years would have been a great help to the forces and the British tax payers pocket.
The current expense of the marinisation of the Merlin mk3 and the lose of capability when the Sea King mk7 goes could have been so much easyer and cheaper to deal with.
Its so easy to be wise in hindsight were I confronted with these difficult decisions at the time would I have done any different?

 

[swerve]

...
I like FASGW(H) but if there are issues with the French funding, I would buy off the shelf, certainly if it is cheaper (worth a study at least) and could be in service quickly....

There isn't an OTS option in that class. Nothing between Hellfire (half the size & with much, much smaller range) & Marte 2, I think.


Volkodav:
Wildcat is already getting LMM. That fills the APKWS/Cirit/etc niche, & has the advantage of (1) being built in a bit of the UK with high unemployment & (2) conveniently fitting in with cancellation of an order for MANPADS which used the same rear end, & production of which had already begun. We thus save cancellation penalties & don't waste a lot of components which have already been made, thus reducing the price. Oh yeah, & we get it delivered pretty quickly. Due to start arriving this year.

AFAIK there's no plan to buy a heavier missile than FASGW(H) for Wildcat.

 

[1805]

There isn't an OTS option in that class. Nothing between Hellfire (half the size & with much, much smaller range) & Marte 2, I think.
.

I was referring specifically to the NSM as an option, only if the French funding did not arrive and the RN was left to finance development on its own.

Appreciate its heavier, but I would hope we should fit to both Wildcat & Merlin's fleets.

 

[swerve]

I see pictures of a Wildcat with four FASGW(H). How many NSM could it carry? And what would they be useful against?

I think FASGW(H) was chosen because it's thought to the the right size for the right sort of targets, & because a decent number can be carried.

 

[1805]

I see pictures of a Wildcat with four FASGW(H). How many NSM could it carry? And what would they be useful against?

I think FASGW(H) was chosen because it's thought to the the right size for the right sort of targets, & because a decent number can be carried.

LMM changes the equation, you need multi shots for swam attacks, for the targets you would use a FASGW(H) for maybe 2 would be more appropriate, certainly with a 125kg warhead, one hit is likely to be more than enough. How much of the old Skua role will be taken on by LMM?

I would fit the NSM to Merlin anyway (as I would do FASGW(H)), making the frigate/T45s more GP. But I am suggesting look at NSM if there French force the RN to go it alone and the cost are better.

On the potential economics, we probably could get away with as little as c200 missiles.

 

[Volkodav]

Fair point, I completely forgot about LMM and FASGW(L) with all the discussion about FASGW(H). Always liked Starstreak and had wondered of it had an anti surface capability, I suppose the new question is could FASGW(L) be developed to be compatable with the Stormer based system?

 

[RobWilliams]

@1805

LMM won't take up hardly any of FASGW(H)'s role, LMM has a 3kg warhead. FASWG(H) is designed to deal with ships up to 1000t I think is the number thrown around, presumably can tackle bigger ships by targeting vital areas.

LMM will only really be useful for the very light vessels, it's 1/4 the weight of Brimstone. According to the guy who writes ThinkDefence, the warhead is 6.2kg. If Sea Spear or Brimstone 2 was only really aimed at FAC then I doubt LMM would be able to do any better. FASGW(H) has a warhead of something closer to 40kg.

IMO it won't be a case of how much LMM does of FASGW(H)'s role, it's how much would NSM do which is massive overkill for what the RN expects the Wildcat to do. They're not meant to be taking on the heavier vessels with more comprehensive air defence suites, off the top of my head the only thing Sea Skua did in '82 was take out the bridge of a patrol boat and hole an Arg sub on the surface.

Right now i've no idea how cheap NSM would be over FASGW(H), but I'd guess it'd be a much more expensive missile which would probably also have higher integration costs than FASGW(H).

@Volkodav

LMM = FASGW(L), it's just that the (L) variant has actually selected what it is, even if it is Lightweight Multirole Missile, they'll probably give it a more dashing name when in service but given it's probably the same lot who came up with Sea Ceptor i'm not so sure.

maritime role – LMM will be integrated as the Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon Light FASGW(L) missile on the new Wildcat Lynx helicopter platform under a parallel programme with the UK MoD.
ground-to-ground role – the dual-effect warhead of LMM (blast fragmentation and shaped charge) makes it suitable for a wide range of ground targets including light/medium armour;
air-launched role – the modular design of the missile permits the future development and introduction of alternative warheads, seekers including a semi-active laser (SAL) version for precision strike surface attack roles;

First production contract for Thales

But in the ground-to-ground co

 

[RobWilliams]

Just uploaded by BAE, HMS Iron Duke's Artisan is up and spinning.

Artisan Radical Radar Spots at Speed of Sound - YouTube

Hopefully won't be too long until she's out to try it out + the next ship goes in to recieve their set.

Never actually fully appreciated the height of the Type 23, looking at the attached image of an earlier point in Artisan's fitting it looked as though the mast must've been heightened, but it wasn't, it's just the angle

EDIT: Fresh out of the MOD a minute ago, use of the Type 45 in a BMD will is now being investigated

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-destroyer-to-join-ballistic-defence-trial

Building on its relationship with the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the joint Ministry of Defence and industry-run UK Missile Defence Centre (MDC) has agreed to take part in a trial which will include, for the first time, a Royal Navy Type 45 taking part in a major research and development programme. This will include testing the Sampson radar, part of the Sea Viper missile system, in detecting and tracking ballistic targets.

Glad to see this sort of planning taking place, we should get as much out've the Type 45 as we can considering the numbers we've got.

 

[spsun100001]

EDIT: Fresh out of the MOD a minute ago, use of the Type 45 in a BMD will is now being investigated

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-destroyer-to-join-ballistic-defence-trial



Glad to see this sort of planning taking place, we should get as much out've the Type 45 as we can considering the numbers we've got.

I take it from the quote that we are testing the ability of the radar to detect and track TBM's - it is still presumably the case that the Type 45 would not be able to engage them as Aster does not have that capability?

 

[RobWilliams]

That'd be my guess.

The Dutch are tinkering with the SMART-L (S1850 is a derivative of that I believe) to get the BMD capability from the radar itself.

Ballistic Missile Upgrade for Dutch Frigate Radars | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

Then considering MBDA has done a bit of work on a potential future Aster 30 Blk2 which may or may not come to light, but if the UK is looking towards BMD on their Type 45's then IMO it's a concept that'd have to come to light.

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

So as of right now, they might be able to detect and initially track ballistic missiles, but the derivative of SMART-L the Dutch are doing would be needed to sufficiently track and engage them.

Should emphasise the above paragraph is guesswork, after all, if the Type 45 couldn't initially detect them then there's no point in testing her as is for that role really

 

[swerve]

As I understand it, the Dutch modifications to Smart-L have been tested, & this is an announcement that they will be implemented. Development is over, now it's in production.

AFAIK (but I'm no expert) it shouldn't be too hard to apply the same modifications to S1850M.

Aster Block 2 is under development, but Aster 30 Block 1 is in production for France & Italy. It's only effective against short-range BMs, though. Block 2 (really a new missile) should work against medium-range BMs.

 

[RobWilliams]

Ah right ok, sounds about right really. Could be something interesting to look at for the Type 45's first major maintenance period. IIRC I remember reading another article - which i currently can't find - that the majority of the differences were software based

Is there a difference between Aster 30 Blk1 and the Aster 30 the RN have hold of? I'm confused.

But yeah, Blk2 uses HTK technology rather than proximity fuzes, doesn't it?

 

[kev 99]

Ah right ok, sounds about right really. Could be something interesting to look at for the Type 45's first major maintenance period. IIRC I remember reading another article - which i currently can't find - that the majority of the differences were software based

Is there a difference between Aster 30 Blk1 and the Aster 30 the RN have hold of? I'm confused.

But yeah, Blk2 uses HTK technology rather than proximity fuzes, doesn't it?

I believe it's just software (but don't quote me).

 

[swerve]

Ditto to that, Kev.

Block 2 is a fat two-stage missile with a separate hit to kill stage on top. It looks as if the interceptor is unpowered apart from side thrusters.
Aster Block 2
Note the video of how it's intended to work.

 

[spsun100001]

Ditto to that, Kev.

Block 2 is a fat two-stage missile with a separate hit ti kill stage on top. It looks as if the interceptor is unpowered apart from side thrusters.
Aster Block 2
Note the video of how it's intended to work.

Would block 2 fit into the current VLS silos on the Type 45?

 

[deepsixteen]

Would block 2 fit into the current VLS silos on the Type 45?

Hi

In a word yes as stated on the first slide linked by swerve.

Deepsixteen