Oh, a curveball no doubt, still, found it interesting 
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Well, here's an article referenced from thinkdefence if anyone's interested - air weapons handling system (the automated munitions system for the ship effectively)
ADS Advance - Babcock commences design work for Type 26 AWHS
ADS Advance - Babcock commences design work for Type 26 AWHS
VL-ASROC can be treated as a "sealed" unit with no user (ship) serviceable pieces. Run BIT at the armory before loadout to the ship and then after it is plugged in the cell and if it fails at any point send it back to the manufacturer.
...Or go bespoke with a VL-ASROC of your own design. The South Koreans did this with Red Shark.
If the torpedo doesn't have to be separated from the cannister for any reason and can just be cycled back to depot level maintenance, that'd make life a lot simpler. I'd like to see something like ASROC in service, it's a neat way of bringing a "sudden death" threat against a sub.
a.k.a. FAS GW(L) ??
Last edited:
spsun100001
New Member
I was encouraged by most of that. The lack of certainty over whether they will be fitted with Phalanx and ASW torpedo tubes along with the fact there is no commitment beyond eight ships remain the only concerns.
I would still like to see all ships in the class fitted to carry the Type 2087 sonar which means that the eight sets we have could always be carried by deployed ships by removing them from ships not on deployment for maintenance etc.
I'm particularly delighted that it is the US Mk VLS system which will be installed enabling us to deploy the LRASM (assuming it enters service) and Tomahawk. Having Tomahawk on the frigates would allow us to use our SSN's more flexibly rather than having to have one tied up providing cruise missile strike capability.
The only question that raises for me is where would be get the Tomahawks from as I understand US production of the missile will cease before the Type 26 comes into service. That either leaves the 26 sharing the very small stocks we have with the Astute's, buying stocks before the production line closes or hoping the US will sell us some of the missiles in their inventory.
Yup! I stopped calling it that once LMM was picked to fill the reqs
kev 99
Member
They can't do that, the version we have bought for the Astute's is the capsule launched varient, which can only be used via a Torpedo tube.
It's in the link that all ships will have a pair of Phalanx CIWS
AFAIK BAE want a commitment of 13 to build the frigate factory, can't imagine it'd go down well in the local area if the Govt pulled the plug in it.
It just calls for better fleet management, although my understanding is the other 5 would be FFBNW the complete sonar fitout meaning that if funds were allocated later then it could be done at a reasonable cost.
Until I see Mk41, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I mean, I know that's the indication from what has been said, but still it could be A70 + integration costs in the name of European collaboration.
SSNs do cruise missile strikes fabulously well, they've certainly proved that. Arguably they fulfil the requirement, however in the event of a near peer conflict* the priority of our SSNs will be area denial to ships and other submarines, not hanging around in designated zones waiting for orders for missile strikes.
Relieving our attack boats of this role is IMO is the best solution.
* something which IMO our forces need to be prepared for, arguably the presence of world class SSNs is an indicator that there is still a will for this.
AFAIK stopping TLAM production is an idea being thrown around (and has to pass Congress) rather than something which is going to happen for sure. although I don't fully understand US procurement so I could be talking out of the posterior.
In any case, we then buy whatever the US designs to replace it. The hope is it'd be in service before their stocks are depleted, considering they fire more off in a year than we have in our entire stock then piggy-backing off their stocks wouldn't represent a significant drain.
Sub launched and surface launched missiles are different, there would have to be two stocks of missiles I think.
spsun100001
New Member
Thanks for the reply Rob.
I read the article on the other forum too and he seemed to call Phalanx into question and to be more confident of Mk 141. I completely agree with you though: there is every chance of us buying European and paying more money for a less useful system in the name of collaboration.
I just can't think it would be too much money to put the towing gear and the consoles for the 2087 into the other 5 units at build and it would give an enormous increase in flexibility ensuring that there were always eight 2087's at sea.
You're right about us not being able to share the SSN launched TLAM's (and thanks to Kev 99 for also pointing that out). I'm delighted about that to be honest as it takes away the option of sharing out the tiny number of TLAM's we have between the frigates and SSN's.
I understand the USN TLAM decision to be driven by the fact they believe that they have enough existing stocks of the missile to last until its replacement enters service. That could leave the production lines shut and us either having a long wait until a replacement arrives or begging the USN to sell us some from their stocks.
I read the article on the other forum too and he seemed to call Phalanx into question and to be more confident of Mk 141. I completely agree with you though: there is every chance of us buying European and paying more money for a less useful system in the name of collaboration.
I just can't think it would be too much money to put the towing gear and the consoles for the 2087 into the other 5 units at build and it would give an enormous increase in flexibility ensuring that there were always eight 2087's at sea.
You're right about us not being able to share the SSN launched TLAM's (and thanks to Kev 99 for also pointing that out). I'm delighted about that to be honest as it takes away the option of sharing out the tiny number of TLAM's we have between the frigates and SSN's.
I understand the USN TLAM decision to be driven by the fact they believe that they have enough existing stocks of the missile to last until its replacement enters service. That could leave the production lines shut and us either having a long wait until a replacement arrives or begging the USN to sell us some from their stocks.
I believe the missiles are identical, it's the capsule or cannister that they're in which is different as far as I understand it.It's in the link that all ships will have a pair of Phalanx CIWS
AFAIK BAE want a commitment of 13 to build the frigate factory, can't imagine it'd go down well in the local area if the Govt pulled the plug in it.
It just calls for better fleet management, although my understanding is the other 5 would be FFBNW the complete sonar fitout meaning that if funds were allocated later then it could be done at a reasonable cost.
Until I see Mk41, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I mean, I know that's the indication from what has been said, but still it could be A70 + integration costs in the name of European collaboration.
SSNs do cruise missile strikes fabulously well, they've certainly proved that. Arguably they fulfil the requirement, however in the event of a near peer conflict* the priority of our SSNs will be area denial to ships and other submarines, not hanging around in designated zones waiting for orders for missile strikes.
Relieving our attack boats of this role is IMO is the best solution.
* something which IMO our forces need to be prepared for, arguably the presence of world class SSNs is an indicator that there is still a will for this.
AFAIK stopping TLAM production is an idea being thrown around (and has to pass Congress) rather than something which is going to happen for sure. although I don't fully understand US procurement so I could be talking out of the posterior.
In any case, we then buy whatever the US designs to replace it. The hope is it'd be in service before their stocks are depleted, considering they fire more off in a year than we have in our entire stock then piggy-backing off their stocks wouldn't represent a significant drain.
Sub launched and surface launched missiles are different, there would have to be two stocks of missiles I think.
Everyone seems to be rediscovering. LM's VARIOUS LO STOVL drone.
Anyway, shocking news(!) apparently our F-35 squadrons won't be operational when QE becomes operational and it's atrocious that the USMC will be the first F-35s on our deck!
Big deal.
USMC are going to be our key partners on this project, we could get our squadrons ready earlier but it's our own darn fault for not buying enough of them quickly enough!
Frankly it's still better than the alternative - have NO fixed wing aircraft. At least this way our deck crew, maintainers and flight ops people get critical experience which we desperately need. Is it ideal? Not really. But that's the hand we're dealt and quite honestly it's still not a bad hand.
I'm curious about their service dates though, last I heard it was 2018 IOC for land and flight tests for sea, 2020 FOC land and IOC sea anyway. So not really an earthshaking news story except the 'shame' of asking the USMC if they wanted to use it for a few years.
Doubt they're particularly unhappy about it either. Would be nice to see some USMC squadrons based in the UK in general . . .
Anyway, shocking news(!) apparently our F-35 squadrons won't be operational when QE becomes operational and it's atrocious that the USMC will be the first F-35s on our deck!
Big deal.
USMC are going to be our key partners on this project, we could get our squadrons ready earlier but it's our own darn fault for not buying enough of them quickly enough!
Frankly it's still better than the alternative - have NO fixed wing aircraft. At least this way our deck crew, maintainers and flight ops people get critical experience which we desperately need. Is it ideal? Not really. But that's the hand we're dealt and quite honestly it's still not a bad hand.
I'm curious about their service dates though, last I heard it was 2018 IOC for land and flight tests for sea, 2020 FOC land and IOC sea anyway. So not really an earthshaking news story except the 'shame' of asking the USMC if they wanted to use it for a few years.
Doubt they're particularly unhappy about it either. Would be nice to see some USMC squadrons based in the UK in general . . .
A4kscooter
Member
The good news is we have so far ordered 4 x F35B to replace the Tornado which retires in 4 years and equip 2 x carriers.
Of course we shouldn't forget the lack of MPA
Any potential enemy must be s***ing themselves
Of course we shouldn't forget the lack of MPA
Any potential enemy must be s***ing themselves
He plan was always small batches, this 14 over LRIP 8,9,10. That was always the plan, I don't get why people are surprised at this. As though we'd suddenly put an order in for 14 right off the bat.
Besides which, come 2019 we'll have Typhoon with Brimstone/Storm Shadow/Paveway IV. The only thing we won't be bringing over is RAPTOR which is meant to be pretty kick-ass and Litening III doesn't match it.
If anything, come 2019 you'll be crapping on the F35 for only having Paveway IV for A2G
Besides which, come 2019 we'll have Typhoon with Brimstone/Storm Shadow/Paveway IV. The only thing we won't be bringing over is RAPTOR which is meant to be pretty kick-ass and Litening III doesn't match it.
If anything, come 2019 you'll be crapping on the F35 for only having Paveway IV for A2G
A concept from 2006 or even earlier, & AFAIK still a concept.
100% still a concept, but for us it seems like an interesting proposal.
At the end of the day it seems like we may as well hang with what the USMC does, if they can use it from their amphibs then so can we.
RN establishes UAV squadron - 12/3/2014 - Flight Global
Known as 700X NAS based at Culdrose, Cornwall. Reformed to oversee deployment of the ScanEagle UAS as well as being the developmental and testing squadron for future UAVs. Potentially the unmanned rotary system which is being developed by Agusta Westland.
The CO of the squadron highly praises ScanEagle, especially high quality image capability.
It's been in service on a few frigates and RFA Cardigan Bay in the Gulf and seems to be successful. It offers interesting potential in the area of NGFS to correct fire if there's no local observers to do it.
http://news.usni.org/2014/12/01/u-k...230436329&mc_cid=101bc2caa8&mc_eid=02aae12459
Update on the attack boat plans, Talent and Triumph to move to Faslane by 2020, Torbay and Trenchant will stay in Devonport until decommissioning in 2017 and 2019 respectively. All Astutes will go to Faslane, Astute and Ambush are already based.
https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/11985
Good article and images of recent F35B UK weapon trials, early 2015 is the date down for weapon separation and guided release trials.
Oh, and RFA Argus' OSD is confirmed to be 2024, wonder if Diligence will get the same treatment.
Known as 700X NAS based at Culdrose, Cornwall. Reformed to oversee deployment of the ScanEagle UAS as well as being the developmental and testing squadron for future UAVs. Potentially the unmanned rotary system which is being developed by Agusta Westland.
The CO of the squadron highly praises ScanEagle, especially high quality image capability.
It's been in service on a few frigates and RFA Cardigan Bay in the Gulf and seems to be successful. It offers interesting potential in the area of NGFS to correct fire if there's no local observers to do it.
http://news.usni.org/2014/12/01/u-k...230436329&mc_cid=101bc2caa8&mc_eid=02aae12459
Update on the attack boat plans, Talent and Triumph to move to Faslane by 2020, Torbay and Trenchant will stay in Devonport until decommissioning in 2017 and 2019 respectively. All Astutes will go to Faslane, Astute and Ambush are already based.
https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/11985
Good article and images of recent F35B UK weapon trials, early 2015 is the date down for weapon separation and guided release trials.
Oh, and RFA Argus' OSD is confirmed to be 2024, wonder if Diligence will get the same treatment.
kev 99
Member
I will confess that I don't really understand what the target market is for this concept. It's size limited payload is just a mini gun and a pair of hellfires, that suggests to me that it is intended for the counter insurgency market, but it's an LO airframe, and a small one at that, which means it's probably got a fairly short range.
I think it is too small to be particularly useful.