The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
ADMk2 said:
Any chance the RN may swap out some of the Sylver cells for Mk.41? I seem to recall there was some talk of putting Tomahawk onto the T45’s?

The Block V variant of Tomahawk would neatly resolve the lack of an ASM issue as well…
Click to expand...

There was space reserved for Mk41 ahead of the Sylvers but that's apparently now being committed to the Sea Ceptor silos. That would been where TLAM went if it'd ever have come about. TLAM was always a "maybe, it'd be nice" but I suspect the window closed when the costs for the PIP work became clear - if you're pulling out the existing diesel gensets then that's a pile of pennies that have to come from somewhere.

Next time around, buy MT-30's and have done :)
 
Git_Kraken

Git_Kraken

Active Member
57mm shouldn't be used as a "backstop for leakers", that what the CIWS is. 57mm should be a fully integrated part of the self-defence plan. When you calculate the PKill for an incoming missile its kill probabilities get added to that equation along with all the other hard kill and soft kill assets.

Should all of that fail that's where the leaker defence comes in. Something you didn't predict or is mathematically on the far end of the probabilities is a leaker. Hence CIWS, which is usually is best left to do its own thing. CIWS is for when the plan goes wrong. 57mm is part of the plan.

Given the publically available info on both Aster 30 and the CAMM I suspect that a 57mm would not be needed and that a 4.5" provides more capability in a deficient area. I think a 127mm might be a better add.

That being said perhaps the money was only available for a missile and CMS upgrade. If they are designing a new destroyer at this point then those lessons can be pushed into the new design. Likely no more 4.5" either way.

As for Mk41, I like what the UK did here. They doubled down on the AAW aspect of the ship, and will rely on the T26 to fire any ordinance that a Mk41 needs to carry. It makes sense, the T26 are able to go closer to shore with the 127mm, carry land attack missiles and operate detached from the TG. The T45 stays close to home protecting the carrier. T26 has better capability against any inshore subs or mines due to its quieter design and ASW abilities. It's flex deck can carry UUVs or boats for SOF.

This is going to be a great combo for the UK.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Git_Kraken said:
57mm shouldn't be used as a "backstop for leakers", that what the CIWS is. 57mm should be a fully integrated part of the self-defence plan. When you calculate the PKill for an incoming missile its kill probabilities get added to that equation along with all the other hard kill and soft kill assets.

Should all of that fail that's where the leaker defence comes in. Something you didn't predict or is mathematically on the far end of the probabilities is a leaker. Hence CIWS, which is usually is best left to do its own thing. CIWS is for when the plan goes wrong. 57mm is part of the plan.

Given the publically available info on both Aster 30 and the CAMM I suspect that a 57mm would not be needed and that a 4.5" provides more capability in a deficient area. I think a 127mm might be a better add.

That being said perhaps the money was only available for a missile and CMS upgrade. If they are designing a new destroyer at this point then those lessons can be pushed into the new design. Likely no more 4.5" either way.

As for Mk41, I like what the UK did here. They doubled down on the AAW aspect of the ship, and will rely on the T26 to fire any ordinance that a Mk41 needs to carry. It makes sense, the T26 are able to go closer to shore with the 127mm, carry land attack missiles and operate detached from the TG. The T45 stays close to home protecting the carrier. T26 has better capability against any inshore subs or mines due to its quieter design and ASW abilities. It's flex deck can carry UUVs or boats for SOF.

This is going to be a great combo for the UK.
Click to expand...

I definitely think getting 4.5 inch out of service completely would be a good move - otherwise the T45's are carrying all the support burden for six mounts in service. Replacing it with a 127mm mount would likely be more complex - and therefore costly. I've certainly spoken to at least one RN sailor in warfare who was enthusiastic on that possibility.

Either way, getting Sea Ceptor cells onto Type 45 seems like a good move and will strengthen it's already good AAW capabilities.

I'm suspecting Type 83 will end up being a much larger ship than type 45 - the assigned number points at a multirole vessel and the 45's are already regarded as cramped for space in terms of upgrades etc. I'm thinking 12-14 thousand tons standard maybe ?
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
TLAM are currently carried by the subs. It isn't required that the T45 carries them. Now the T26 can, there is even less of a requirement.

Now the carriers are operational, they can do the US thing, and hit things with carrier power. Inevitably the T45 will be near or with the carriers, or a sub or frigate.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
www.defensenews.com

Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Don’t have to go very far to see what the UKs European NATO Allies are planning size wise for the next Generation of DDGs/AAW Frigates. The Italian ships are supposedly going to be 175x24x9m that is a big Destroyer in anyones books.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
StobieWan said:
I definitely think getting 4.5 inch out of service completely would be a good move - otherwise the T45's are carrying all the support burden for six mounts in service. Replacing it with a 127mm mount would likely be more complex - and therefore costly. I've certainly spoken to at least one RN sailor in warfare who was enthusiastic on that possibility.

Either way, getting Sea Ceptor cells onto Type 45 seems like a good move and will strengthen it's already good AAW capabilities.

I'm suspecting Type 83 will end up being a much larger ship than type 45 - the assigned number points at a multirole vessel and the 45's are already regarded as cramped for space in terms of upgrades etc. I'm thinking 12-14 thousand tons standard maybe ?
Click to expand...
Having re-read the comments over the last 2 pages, I think I get what you guys are getting at (RE: T45 / Mk8 vs BAE Mk110 vs BAE Mk45)

I have to say that I firmly believe that Type 45's will never be 'up-gunned' to the Mk45, as IMHO it'd be a waste of money. Similarly, while I believe the Mk110 to be a 'great gun' (due to RoF / Munitions types that are now available), again IMHO, it would be a waste of money retro-fitting Type 45's with it.

Having made those x2 comments, I have to provide the thinking that drives them.

#1 - Mk8 / MOD1 4.5 Inch does give 'bang for the buck', as the RN already has a copious amounts of munitions, spares & crews that are trained to keep the guns going.
#2 - These guns / associated ships are going to be around for another 15 years minimum, so it makes sense to keep them until the end, rather than trying to 'cross-deck' the retro fitted Mk 110 / Mk45 into their replacements.
#3 - Costs saved by NOT integrating the newer guns, allows for funds to be spread out across the fleet, to incorporate the same new weapons into the new hulls as they come on stream, limiting initial expenditure into manageable chunks.

As for Type 83, simply not enough detail out on the interewebs for anyone to really hazard a guess, although I speculate that T83 will be greater than 10,000 GRT, probably heading for 12,000 GRT. The Type 26 hull form can be easily expanded by inserting a 10 - 15m long plug, allowing for additional prime mover power / more bunkerage, to go further, while giving the adaptability to possibly extend the Hangar /mission bay complex that Type 26 currently has.

I also feel that larger ships with smaller crews will be one of the key principles of Type 83, as there will likely be a drive to more automation of 'systems' that service the ship (i.e. not weapons systems, but hotel services / fluid control/HVAC & the like).
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Realising that GRT isn't a measured of mass, it still would suggest that the Type 83 could end being the size of a WW2 County Class Heavy Cruiser. They were 8in cruisers which were supposed to be under 10,000 tons to comply with the Washington Treaty, but in 1939 they breached the limit and the Admiralty kinda forgot to mention that. How sad, to bad, never mind as RSM Williams was fond of saying.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:
Realising that GRT isn't a measured of mass, it still would suggest that the Type 83 could end being the size of a WW2 County Class Heavy Cruiser. They were 8in cruisers which were supposed to be under 10,000 tons to comply with the Washington Treaty, but in 1939 they breached the limit and the Admiralty kinda forgot to mention that. How sad, to bad, never mind as RSM Williams was fond of saying.
Click to expand...
For those that don't know....

CSM Williams....
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
Realising that GRT isn't a measured of mass, it still would suggest that the Type 83 could end being the size of a WW2 County Class Heavy Cruiser. They were 8in cruisers which were supposed to be under 10,000 tons to comply with the Washington Treaty, but in 1939 they breached the limit and the Admiralty kinda forgot to mention that. How sad, to bad, never mind as RSM Williams was fond of saying.
Click to expand...
In 1939 the German Navy were commissioning the Hipper class which were 6m longer then the Queen Elizabeth Class Battleships and had a standard displacement of 15-16000t. And the Battleships were still only suppose to have been a maximum of 35,000t. Some of the Navies had a very funny way of measuring standard displacement.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Git_Kraken said:
4.5" is 114mm not 127mm. 5" is the 127mm. Given the excellent capabilities of CAMM at close ranges and the combination of the Phalanx, a 57mm might not add enough PKill to make it worthwhile. With the retirement of the Harpoons, the only ASuW ability left for the T45's is their main gun.

I'm pretty agnostic about the guns either way though. 5", 4.5" or 57mm makes no real difference to me. The destroyer's real work is done at the 10-120 km ranges (or further). The CAMM will strengthen that quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I know what 4.5" is in mm. I was replying to a suggestion to replace the 4.5".

The main guns being fitted to frigates/destroyers currently building or on order are 127mm (Type 26) & 57mm (Type 31), 4.5" is being retired, currently as ships equipped with it retire. The last such ships in the RN will be the six Type 45s.
 
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
The Type 45’s IEP components have screwed with the QE CBG deployment.
Click to expand...
Not that much, the rest of the group will continue as planned. It's the carrier that is the centre of the fleet, not the escorts. I mean, what's going to happen without Diamond - are we going to war with China in a month?

In any event, Ben Wallace has said Diamond is likely to be fixed in a few weeks, so there's time to catch up before its over.

(Now if it was Fort Victoria that had broken down....)
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Musashi_kenshin said:
Not that much, the rest of the group will continue as planned. It's the carrier that is the centre of the fleet, not the escorts. I mean, what's going to happen without Diamond - are we going to war with China in a month?

In any event, Ben Wallace has said Diamond is likely to be fixed in a few weeks, so there's time to catch up before its over.

(Now if it was Fort Victoria that had broken down....)
Click to expand...

Not critical for this deployment but the PIP needs to be applied to all Type 45s ASAP if the RN wants its own reliable escorts. If all future deployments are to be allied affairs then PIP isn’t so critical but still highly desirable.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It appears that there is a COVID-19 outbreak within the CSG. Apparently Jolly Jack acquired it during a run ashore at Cyprus and now it's in about half the ships of the fleet. According to the Admiralty all the crews have been vaccinated.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Carrier Strike Group suffering COVID-19 outbreak

It has been reported that "almost half" of the warships in HMS Queen Elizabeth's Carrier Strike Group have been hit by positive COVID-19 cases.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
John Fedup said:
Not critical for this deployment but the PIP needs to be applied to all Type 45s ASAP if the RN wants its own reliable escorts. If all future deployments are to be allied affairs then PIP isn’t so critical but still highly desirable.
Click to expand...

Sooner it's done, sooner I'll feel happier. The decision to axe the final pair was based on the idea that they'd be high availability ships and could be kept on active duty at a very aggressive tempo. That sort of rings hollow today :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top