The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I believe the Sea Kings still have ten years or more of life left in them after the new carriers are delivered, so I would not expect anything new until that life is used up. The Sea Kings can also be SLEPed, providing for more years. But there will come a time when something new will be required, a Merlin replacement should do. At that time no one knows whether the Hawkeye will be available or if a new aircraft will be developed. Some think an Osprey type may be developed in the future. If and when a Royal Navy/Marine version is developed, I would suspect the British would prefer that aircraft over a Merlin. Prefer does not necessarily mean have to have. I still think a Merlin will be sufficient. Therefore, the Royal Navy has plenty of time to choose which aircraft to choose fifteen years into the future, no decision has to be made now. So let us not pretend this must be decided now, we should be thinking there may be options available later.
Is it a good idea for the British to join an Osprey development solution with the US Navy/Marines, YES! Will this eventually lead to future orders, time will tell.
Is it a good idea for the British to join an Osprey development solution with the US Navy/Marines, YES! Will this eventually lead to future orders, time will tell.
I meant the dimensions of the F35 compared with Ark Royal's
just to add my .2p the LPH issue is simpler to man compared with a carrier look how small the crew is for Ocean compared with Invincible Class ship which have crews of over 800+ [im counting the ships crew not the air dept] compared with Oceans 120+ which could be redused futher so it could still be possible from a manning perspective to man 2 CVF + 2 LPH money and other issues would have be passed 1st though
Last edited:
I think the British government wanted much more aircraft sortie rates, and much more offensive and defensive air power projection than what an Invincible produces in the future. Frankly, the Invincibles don't produce much more air power than what an Australian Melbourne did. For twice the money the new carriers will provide four times the clout in air power.
...While relevant to this thread, but not exactly following the current discussion of the previous few comments, I've noticed this week, from the river bank opposite BAE's site in Glasgow, that Type 45 No. 3 (HMS Diamond) has had her LRR Fitted.
Hopefully it shouldn't be too long till No.2 (HMS Dauntless) is ready to go on sea trials, as they've been running engines this week too.
Systems Adict
Hopefully it shouldn't be too long till No.2 (HMS Dauntless) is ready to go on sea trials, as they've been running engines this week too.
Systems Adict
I have been attempting to find dimensions for the lifts on the old Ark Royal, R09. The best I have been able to conclude is via a small drawing. Using a ruler for scale, she had two lifts, one approximately 60 feet by 34 feet, and another 60 feet by 39 feet, the larger lift forward. While I won't guarantee these numbers, they should be close if the drawing is close. These dimensions are not that much different than the Invincible class lifts. Therefore, the new Queen Elizabeths will have significantly larger lifts.
From Combat Fleet the Enterprise's lifts are 26 meters by 16 meters, I could not find any information on the Nimitz class. I would assume the new Queen Elizabeth's lifts will be similar.
From Combat Fleet the Enterprise's lifts are 26 meters by 16 meters, I could not find any information on the Nimitz class. I would assume the new Queen Elizabeth's lifts will be similar.
Last edited:
The Mod has just signed an agreement with all of the Team Complex Weapons members, two contracts have been placed with MBDA (UK) Ltd and Thales UK to develop six Complex Weapons projects within the Assessment Phase, worth around £74 million for the first year. These include:
Indirect Fire Precision Attack Loitering Munition (MBDA-led with Team Loitering Munition);
100kg weapon family to meet first the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (heavyweight) requirement for Royal Navy helicopters (MBDA);
Light weapon family to meet first the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (lightweight) requirement (Thales UK);
50kg weapon family to meet the Selected Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR) requirement for fast jets and helicopters (MBDA);
The Common Anti-Air Modular Missile family to meet first the requirement for a Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) for the Type 23 frigate and the Future Surface Combatant (MBDA);and
An upgrade programme for Storm Shadow, currently used on the Tornado GR4 (MBDA)*.
One of the contracts refers to FLAADS, which I can only assume is a replacement for SEAWOLF, which also could make an appearance on future C2 or 3 assets (as an alternative to PAAMS on C1). If we are looking at a SEAWOLF replacement then the new design will have to be fairly compact to enable it to be installed in the space currently filled by the existing silo? This may also indicate the UK Governments intention to drag-out the life of the T23. Fit the system on the T23 first then transfer across to C2 or C3 as the former are decommisioned and the latter come online!
*Note: Info taken form MOD site.
Indirect Fire Precision Attack Loitering Munition (MBDA-led with Team Loitering Munition);
100kg weapon family to meet first the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (heavyweight) requirement for Royal Navy helicopters (MBDA);
Light weapon family to meet first the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (lightweight) requirement (Thales UK);
50kg weapon family to meet the Selected Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR) requirement for fast jets and helicopters (MBDA);
The Common Anti-Air Modular Missile family to meet first the requirement for a Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) for the Type 23 frigate and the Future Surface Combatant (MBDA);and
An upgrade programme for Storm Shadow, currently used on the Tornado GR4 (MBDA)*.
One of the contracts refers to FLAADS, which I can only assume is a replacement for SEAWOLF, which also could make an appearance on future C2 or 3 assets (as an alternative to PAAMS on C1). If we are looking at a SEAWOLF replacement then the new design will have to be fairly compact to enable it to be installed in the space currently filled by the existing silo? This may also indicate the UK Governments intention to drag-out the life of the T23. Fit the system on the T23 first then transfer across to C2 or C3 as the former are decommisioned and the latter come online!
*Note: Info taken form MOD site.
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
As i understand it, CAAM (Seawolf replacement) is based on the ASRAAM missile and is also supposed to be capable of being deployed on land as a Rapier replacement. So i could quite easily see it being constructed in a VLS form, possibly in a sylver VLS (for T23's) and Canister form similar to RAM (for land deployment + CIWS on T45's and FSC).
seems to me a UK Mica system is what they are trying to develop with CAMM.
I wonder if its going to come with a new VLS or will it be compatible with the Slyver and/or Sea Wolf VLS.
if it comes in Cannister might also make a decent upgraded for the CVF's if money could be found upgrade a CIWS
Why not go with VL Mica? Already developed missile with dual seeker option? Is this industrial politics or really relevant development program?
Edit:
Basic specs:
ASRAAM: Weight 88 kg, Length 2.90 m, Diameter 0.166 m
MICA:Weight 112 kg, Length 3.1 m, Diameter 160 mm
VL-SEAWOLF: Mass 140 kg. Length 3 m, Diameter 0.18 m
As I would guess the mass difference isn't meaningful for RN platforms intended, I really see no point of having ASRAAM as basis for this new point defense system.
Last edited:
That's what I call EU defense efficiency
I wonder if MBDA in reality will develop just one system but will force governments to pay for development of four separate ones... Can reuse components (e.g. launchers) if appropriate, and even sell it as an advantage (cost savings, interoperability, etc.), but don't you think someone might notice if their "Asraam-based" missile looked exactly like a Mica or IRIS-T, or any other similar substitution?
Well, in theory you could build a near-identical system, and repackage it to three or four missile frames, as long as they have near-identical dimensions.
However, by the time you've modularized this down to the amount of different design choices your customers want, you're stuck with pretty much developing a Bus.
However, by the time you've modularized this down to the amount of different design choices your customers want, you're stuck with pretty much developing a Bus.
As long as the jobs in x-shire (or wherever the pork is to be distributed) are kept I don't think British MoD will care.
The current MICA vertical launch system is apprarenty based on the vertical launch technology developed by BAE Systems for the Seawolf naval air defence missile, so must make sense because of a certain degree of compatability. The downsize appears to be range, only 10km, not a huge leap over the current SEAWOLF at 6km. I understand ASRAAM has an approx range of 15km, more than double that of SEAWOLF
Last edited:
MBDA says 20 km range for VL Mica, not 10 km.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_VL-MICA-Land_94.html
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_VL-MICA-Land_94.html
So it would have some capability of area air defense (not just goalkeeper). As for layman as me, capability of firing RF and IIR sensor missiles at same target at same time would appear to be a big plus.
Further to your Seawolf missile comments, I saw this today....
http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_108616131356.html
BAE SYSTEMS AND MBDA KEEP SEAWOLF POINT DEFENCE MISSILE SYSTEM OPERATIONAL INTO THE NEXT DECADE
Chelmsford, United Kingdom - BAE Systems has been awarded a £141m contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to maintain the Seawolf air defence system on board the Royal Navy’s. Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates.
The SWISS (Seawolf In Service Support) Contract for Availability (CfA), alongside a complementary contract awarded to the missile systems company MBDA, will sustain the capability of the Seawolf system and ensure its readiness and availability until the end of 2017.
So the "Wolf" is gonna be around for a while yet....
SA
http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_108616131356.html
BAE SYSTEMS AND MBDA KEEP SEAWOLF POINT DEFENCE MISSILE SYSTEM OPERATIONAL INTO THE NEXT DECADE
Chelmsford, United Kingdom - BAE Systems has been awarded a £141m contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to maintain the Seawolf air defence system on board the Royal Navy’s. Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates.
The SWISS (Seawolf In Service Support) Contract for Availability (CfA), alongside a complementary contract awarded to the missile systems company MBDA, will sustain the capability of the Seawolf system and ensure its readiness and availability until the end of 2017.
So the "Wolf" is gonna be around for a while yet....
SA