The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The "Plan" ( LOL) is to Candianize an existing proven design and then build ships in Canada. To my knowledge no design has yet to be selected. DND screwed around with their JSS design for at least 10 years before realizing they could only afford a Berlin class oiler. Even this will have some modifications so no telling when first steel is cut. The other issue is Canada urgently needs a new heavy icebreaker and the yard tasked with these builds can only build one ship at a time. Since Protecteur is likely lost, it will have to be the Berlin class first. So much for the government's Arctic sovereignty ambitions. The surface combat ships will be built in a different yard.
I'm not really 100% sure where this is going, the Type 26 is a program which isn't in a rush & will be being built into the late 2020's so there's plenty of time for Canada to get involved if they want to.
Anyway in other news SSN HMS Torbay has finished a 2 year RAMP and is back in action
HMS Torbay ready for sea after refit | Royal Navy
Anyway in other news SSN HMS Torbay has finished a 2 year RAMP and is back in action
HMS Torbay ready for sea after refit | Royal Navy
Yup - all Canada has missed is the chance to get on board with the design from the outset. I'll be interested (huge understatement) to see how the Type 26 looks when then design is finalised (I'd like 'em to go back to fore and after 1b for instance) Whatever happens, it'll be a large and roomy design for a frigate with a quiet power arrangement, allowing for a higher "sneaky" cruise speed than Type 23.
The aviation facilities look good as well, roomy deck with space for anything we have in inventory and a mission bay of sorts to one side. That's flexibility...
The aviation facilities look good as well, roomy deck with space for anything we have in inventory and a mission bay of sorts to one side. That's flexibility...
Out of curiosity, what is it about the fore/aft location you prefer?
A couple of the reasons i've heard thrown around is that it could cause more wear and tear to the fore 1b from crashing into waves all the time, although during the Falklands it read like whenever a missile was inbound, the ships tried to move head on to present as small a target as possible for the missiles so i'd imagine it'd be able to still engage.
A mission bay of sorts to one side? That sucker is huge! It's the entire width of the ships superstructure, you open both the doors and you can see right the way through, it's one huge open space.
Same setup as the RHIB arrangement on the Type 45 so that's some commonality.
The kicker i'd really like to know is if it's Sylver or Mk41. The reduction of 24 to 16 could indicate a swap from Sylver to Mk41 as the cells on the Mk41 are larger.
A couple of the reasons i've heard thrown around is that it could cause more wear and tear to the fore 1b from crashing into waves all the time, although during the Falklands it read like whenever a missile was inbound, the ships tried to move head on to present as small a target as possible for the missiles so i'd imagine it'd be able to still engage.
A mission bay of sorts to one side? That sucker is huge! It's the entire width of the ships superstructure, you open both the doors and you can see right the way through, it's one huge open space.
Same setup as the RHIB arrangement on the Type 45 so that's some commonality.
The kicker i'd really like to know is if it's Sylver or Mk41. The reduction of 24 to 16 could indicate a swap from Sylver to Mk41 as the cells on the Mk41 are larger.
Indeed which definitely leans towards Sylver in both respects with MdCN and - in the future - a derivative of Perseus which i think was developed in consultation with the RN and French Navy.
Greater European drive for expanding their BMD capability with a good development path for Aster 30 reduces the edge of picking Mk41 to a degree.
Gotta show my love for Perseus. One missile to give us land attack capability AND surface attack capability on our airbourne platforms AND surface ships AND submarines. Would prefer an ER version for naval use however with a bigger booster. Similar to what France did with SCALP and MdCN.
EDIT: Holy Smokes, google'd the TLAM thing and the budget for TLAM and Hellfire ends in 2016 and 2015 respectively in the proposed budget.
Brimstone 2 anyone?
Greater European drive for expanding their BMD capability with a good development path for Aster 30 reduces the edge of picking Mk41 to a degree.
Gotta show my love for Perseus. One missile to give us land attack capability AND surface attack capability on our airbourne platforms AND surface ships AND submarines. Would prefer an ER version for naval use however with a bigger booster. Similar to what France did with SCALP and MdCN.
EDIT: Holy Smokes, google'd the TLAM thing and the budget for TLAM and Hellfire ends in 2016 and 2015 respectively in the proposed budget.
Brimstone 2 anyone?
Better firing arcs - plain and simple.
kev 99
Member
I thought the TLAM production was to end at the end of this year/fiscal year? Regardless I don't think it's been particularly widely reported, althought the US is working on a replacement which will go X times further and do X times more things at XX times the price of course.
This is where i'm reading it from, it says that TLAM
Obama to kill Navy's Tomahawk, Hellfire missile programs in budget decimation - Washington Times
It's probably a case of cutting funding for procurement and freeing up funding for the replacement whilst making do with current stocks. Which seems sensible enough for a budget under scrutiny, but then the article moves on to say at the current rate of usage stocks will become 'depleted' by 2018.
Although this is a proposed budget, so there's plenty of hurdles for it to stumble on, including making it through Congress IIRC.
IMO if we're pushing interoperability with the rest of Europe, then we need to go Euro.
Obama to kill Navy's Tomahawk, Hellfire missile programs in budget decimation - Washington Times
It's probably a case of cutting funding for procurement and freeing up funding for the replacement whilst making do with current stocks. Which seems sensible enough for a budget under scrutiny, but then the article moves on to say at the current rate of usage stocks will become 'depleted' by 2018.
Although this is a proposed budget, so there's plenty of hurdles for it to stumble on, including making it through Congress IIRC.
IMO if we're pushing interoperability with the rest of Europe, then we need to go Euro.
Weelll . . . . DM Brimstone has been successfully fired from Reaper, IIRC. Should work on Wildcat. Shorter range than when fired from a fast jet, but still at least as much as Hellfire.
And we have LMM for small targets, & will get FASGW(H). I don't think an end to Hellfire production is a problem for the UK.
It appears the MOD have unofficially given BAE the 'provisional preferred bidder' in the maritime indirect fires system (the gun) with their Mk45 mod 4 62 calibre 5in gun, picked over the Oto 127/64
Mk 45 Mod 4 gun in frame for UK's Type 26 programme - IHS Jane's 360
Mk 45 Mod 4 gun in frame for UK's Type 26 programme - IHS Jane's 360
kev 99
Member
Interesting I think many (including me) were expecting the Otobreda 127/62 cal to win it.
Going for the Mk45 may help with certain markets, i.e. Australian, who already use this mount. It can still be changed out for something else if required by customers but that will be entirely up to them. Producing a ship that could for all intents and purposes slot straight into the USN could have its advantages, not so much with US orders but with allied and friendly navy orders.
Its also BAE which is important so it can be sold as a UK purchase compared with the OTO mount which isn't.
Absolutely, Australia, New Zealand and probably Canada would prefer this gun mount as opposed to the Oto. In reality the more US based systems the RN incorporate the more attractive it would be for those nations
Which is utter horseshit. Most of the articles picking up that line are very conservative and looking to slam the current administration.
Navy Plans To ‘Expeditiously’ Replace Tomahawks | Defense Daily Network
Open source testimony has us "at about 4000 Tomahawks" (does not specify variants). With an expenditure of 200 in Libya. We've barely shot any since.
Even if we had a Libya sized intervention every year, that'd take about 20 years to deplete the inventory.
I do think the "rolling the dice" comments on next gen are a legitimate concern, but we'll see how it shakes out.
That sounds more like it, it seemed pretty ridiculous that the USN would be short of TLAM a few years after their last purchase!
But back to the Mk45, having it as standard would certainly make it a more attractive proposition for other navies who would want to use that system.
Pick Mk41 as well and that's two ticks. . . .
But back to the Mk45, having it as standard would certainly make it a more attractive proposition for other navies who would want to use that system.
Pick Mk41 as well and that's two ticks. . . .