The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Grand Danois said:
Or perhaps these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Box_Launcher
Click to expand...


Cracking picture of a real iconic battleship, especially when you look at it full resolution.
(the capturing of the blast wave from the 16" battries is awsome!)

I suppose having them in a box like that would actually make it quite easy to change out in a hurry, if the situation required it. With the right support vessel & crane, it could even be done at sea(well, in harbour).


Systems Adict
 
Yes, though I was looking for the ABL I also had to have a look at that amazing picture. :D

But it doesn't seem to be a very effective use of space and VLS is perhaps as easily reloaded...(?)
 
The type 45 is an AAW destroyer but there are very few nations now that have an air arm that could mount an attack against shipping.With a fully functioning carrier the threat should be kept away from any task group by its own air wing without having to rely on an aaw destroyer. I would have thought that the biggest threat to any carrier group is going to be submarines.This is certainly the approach of China.The ship I would be buying would be a next generation asw frigate.
 
Truculent said:
there are very few nations now that have an air arm that could mount an attack against shipping.
Click to expand...

Hmm?

True, a lot of nations have gotten rid of pre-assigned strike bomber squadrons for this task; however, the task was in these cases just redistributed to other, multi-role, squadrons. For an allied example, Germany got rid of it's Naval Strike Wing (of 50 Tornados). The missiles (and the anti-ship role) simply were reassigned to the Recon Wing. Some other nations - like China - are actually expanding this naval strike role.
And almost all coastal nations keep operating Maritime Patrol Aircraft, which carry anti-ship missiles for a strike role - be it P-3, Tu-142, Il-38, Atlantiques, or other systems. Some nations have expanded these forces as well recently - like India, by integrating Sea Eagle into their Tu-142M and Il-38 in the late 90s, and considering R-73 AAM for their Il-38.
 
Since the collapse of the USSR ASW has become a low priority. May be too much so I agree. The question is whether navies should focus on littoral warfare to protect themselves from small manoeuvrable coastal SSKs or reactivate the Cold War era focus on defence from SSNs/SSGNs/SSGs.

cheers
 
Truculent said:
The type 45 is an AAW destroyer but there are very few nations now that have an air arm that could mount an attack against shipping.
Click to expand...

Type 45 may well have been designed/envisaged as an AAW destroyer, & will no doubt undertake the role as part of the new UK CBG, but don't forget about the Type 22's / 23's, they were designed for ASW / ASuW.

What are their main roles now ?? :confused:


Drug & piracy enforcement/control - Humanitarian relief, etc. etc. Things that most navies are having to do nowadays - Multi-task / multi-role, as no one has the funds to maintain large fleets of specific role vessels.


Truculent said:
With a fully functioning carrier the threat should be kept away from any task group by its own air wing without having to rely on an aaw destroyer. I would have thought that the biggest threat to any carrier group is going to be submarines.This is certainly the approach of China.The ship I would be buying would be a next generation asw frigate.
Click to expand...


Again, can ANY navy across the globe afford to run single role / task specific vessels ??

If the UK wants to retain it's Blue-water status (which the carrier replacement is all about), being part of the few nations that can project power 1,000's of miles from national waters, utilising mutirole vessels, that can operate as ASW one day, minefield clearance the next, then take over in the AAW or humanitarian duties is a given.


Unless of course, you want an arms race in proportion to the one that took place at the start of the 20th Century.... ?

Long live the Dreadnoughts !

Systems Adict
 
Doh !!

While I valiantly prattled on, I've just realised that my comments don't really have any relationship/bearing to Truculent's comments.


I promise I will go away & try to read & understand things before going off on one.

:nutkick



Apologies to all...

Systems Adict


PS what do you think of my picture of HMS Daring that I've posted in the picture gallery??
 
Last edited:
Truculent said:
The type 45 is an AAW destroyer but there are very few nations now that have an air arm that could mount an attack against shipping......The ship I would be buying would be a next generation asw frigate.
Click to expand...

You don't understand why the Type 45 was built - it's because the Type 42s were reaching the end of their lives and their equipment was becoming obsolete. The RN desperately needed a strong AAW ship to defend against anti-ship missiles, which can be land and submarine-based, not just launched from aircraft. It's not enough to rely on point-defence systems - you need an outer cordon, which the Type 45s supply.

The Type 22 and 23 frigates (the latter especially) can and will remain in service for many years to come, so there is no need to rush an ASW platform.

Also it's rather foolish to assume any potential enemy will not have airborne-threats just because a majority of countries don't have powerful air forces.
 
I agree that the type 42 is a last century ship approaching the end of its life.However the current major threat the RN may face in the near future is Iran.They have a very limited 20th century air arm with questionable servicability.An Iranian strike would be submarine based against any hvu they can find without worrying about survivability.I discussed the T45 with an RN whitehall warrior a little while ago and he could not provide a case for it.I think we still have a cold war/falklands mindset within the RN procurers.
 
Grand Danois said:
Defending assets against coordinated swarms of shorebased AShMs in the Persian Gulf?
Click to expand...

I entirely agree with you. Priority isn't necessarily against enemy fighterbombers, it's against missiles of all sorts. Even the smallest countries can have Exocets or Silkworm SSMs, and most hostile countries are very well equipped in anti-ship missiles launched from batteries inland.
This is IMO why AAW is now priority n°1 for most navies.

Besides, the Iranian Kilos aren't such a threat (inside the Gulf water is too shallow to hide in, and outside Hormuz there are enough ASW assets to trace them) unless we are talking about minelaying or potentially anti-ship missiles. In this case, back to the AAW as n°1 argument...


cheers
 
In the Iranian scenario (depending on intensity), Iran using F4 and other fighters in a anti-ship role should also be expected, just like in 1987/88 by both Iran and Iraq in the Tanker War (and against the USN).

It would be extremely surprising if the RN didn't consider the mine warfare, littoral FAC use and fighter cover/strikes that Iran used in the Tanker War for any future conflict in the area.
 
kato said:
In the Iranian scenario (depending on intensity), Iran using F4 and other fighters in a anti-ship role should also be expected, just like in 1987/88 by both Iran and Iraq in the Tanker War (and against the USN).

It would be extremely surprising if the RN didn't consider the mine warfare, littoral FAC use and fighter cover/strikes that Iran used in the Tanker War for any future conflict in the area.
Click to expand...

Exactly. While the Iranian Navy may lack trained crews to operate a Kilo against a military convoy, they certainly know how to launch the Chinese SSMs from FACs, land-based batteries, and they are used to minelaying. Since I would expect them to initiate hostilities, they would have the advantage of time.

cheers
 
In addition, the coastal area of Iran is rather hilly - with ridges reaching up to 2000 feet and above within 30 miles of the coast. A strike aircraft could probably appear out of the ground clutter within anti-ship missile range with some good luck in this area.

In 1980-86, Iranian F-4E got plenty of experience damaging and sinking ships using both AGM-65 and simple bombs, while their helos mostly went after unarmed ships with AS.12 missiles. With Iranian aircraft carrying modern C-802 and the Iranian derivatives, i'd expect an attempt at a repeat of that.
The question would be whether it turns out like Operation Earnest Will this time.
 
kato said:
In addition, the coastal area of Iran is rather hilly - with ridges reaching up to 2000 feet and above within 30 miles of the coast. A strike aircraft could probably appear out of the ground clutter within anti-ship missile range with some good luck in this area.

In 1980-86, Iranian F-4E got plenty of experience damaging and sinking ships using both AGM-65 and simple bombs, while their helos mostly went after unarmed ships with AS.12 missiles. With Iranian aircraft carrying modern C-802 and the Iranian derivatives, i'd expect an attempt at a repeat of that.
The question would be whether it turns out like Operation Earnest Will this time.
Click to expand...

Yep. The only point that will help us is that we'd have a bunch of AWACS assets in the air that would be able to spot the IRIAF planes before naval radars do. This should limit bad surprises.

cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top