The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I was just trying to lighten things up a bit, do you want to go on? I'm not finished, but this discussion moved away from facts and into something more personal since post #1229.
I could point out the stupidity of your last post, and as enjoyable as that would be it wouldnt do much for the discussion at hand would it??
I could point out the stupidity of your last post, and as enjoyable as that would be it wouldnt do much for the discussion at hand would it??
swedish NSM [i think thats the name of the steathy of swedish Anti-ship missile] that could be carried internarnaly on the F35 and would be vauble to the F35 for Anti-ship strikes.
the QE will have much more power than the older WW2 fleet carriers of corse the advance in technology will be part of it but also the actual desgin of the carriers[the optamised islands, all electric propultion, focus on high sortie rate 110 sorties a day 420 a week. it will in effect be a smaller Kitty Hawk]
and as the Adm Sir Alan West said
'[for a] deep strike package, we have done …quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters …that is the thing that has made us arrive at that size of deck and that size of ship, to enable that to happen.
I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers.'
Last edited:
I'm sure some anti-ship missiles will be integrated. I wouldn't be surprised if Harpoon is, & IIRC Lockheed Martin & Kongsberg issued a joint press release a while ago about NSM & F-35.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Just a point of clarification/correction. The NSM is of Norweigan origin, not Swedish, and a product of Kongsberg, the makers of the Penguin AShM.
http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/pr...oducts/Missiles/NavalxStrikexMissile&id=32934
Sweden makes the RBS-15 which in terms of size I would same is comparable to a Harpoon AShM. As such it should be able to be deployed from an F-35 (once someone does product integration) though likely not from the internal weapon bays. IIRC the bays are not quite long enough to accomodate the later two missiles. NSM, being a somewhat smaller missile, should/does have a smaller warhead but with comparable range.
-Cheers.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
In terms of usage, it could be argued that the USN considers the ESSM a "point-defense missile". Take a look here at the specs for the DDG-51 Flight I and Flight IIA (why they are called "flights" escapes me though). On the Flight I destroyers, the CIWS is provided by two Mk 15 20mm Phalanx systems. The Flight IIA destroyers instead have ESSM. Given that the Phalanx in the past had some trouble with availability, as well as the number of potential threats it would no longer be appropriate to use against, it seems the USN chose a different class of weapon as a point defense weapon.
-Cheers
And that is why it is only fully armed when it goes on deployment, when not on deployment it has a reduced load of SM-2's and ESSM's.
No worse than traditional magazines. Mk-41's like regular magazines have a deluge system, eductors and can flood individual cells to help prevent damage.
They do consider it a point defense missile.
I've never been able to figure that out either.
Some of the Flight IIA's have Phalanx installed, some have 2, some have just one and some don't have any.
Hi, AegisFC. Could you help me on these questions please?
1. Is there any plan to mount the Phalanx Block 1Bs on the Flight IIAs without any Phalanx currently installed?
2. Will all the Phalanx mounted ABs be retrofitted with Block 1B upgrades?
3. Are those Flight IIAs with Phalanxes also capable of firing ESSMs?
4. Is the radar data output from the Phalanxes fed into the AEGIS system? Or is it standalone?
Thanks..
1. Is there any plan to mount the Phalanx Block 1Bs on the Flight IIAs without any Phalanx currently installed?
2. Will all the Phalanx mounted ABs be retrofitted with Block 1B upgrades?
3. Are those Flight IIAs with Phalanxes also capable of firing ESSMs?
4. Is the radar data output from the Phalanxes fed into the AEGIS system? Or is it standalone?
Thanks..
1. No.
2. Yes, their are plans, from what I've been reading the plans are that most ships will recieve 1B upgrade to the aft mount.
3. Not that I know of but that should just be software issues. No additional equipment should be required for ESSM.
4. It is stand-alone but Phalanx can (and usually does) receive target data from Aegis.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
AFAIK at IOC JASSM will be the USAF and RAAF's primary anti shipping weapon for the F35A, and a feasome one. As for the RN's options i'm sure JASSM is a posibility if it gets of the ground. However there are a few more options. The norwegans did a study with the RAAF on the feasability of an airdropable version of their Naval Strike Missile (NSM) to be named Joint Strike Missile for the F35. It sounded like a very capable system, passive IR seeker, 3 didgit km range and LO provided by Lockheed Martin. The study found it could be droped from the internal bay of an F35A/C, although i'm not to sure about an F35B, but it could always be carried externally on the 'B. So far there has been no funding though. As for harpoon I cant see any reason why it cant be carried externally if not internally. Also for low end threats JSOW C III will be a very atractive option, 500kg warhead and IR seeker, especially given the capability and low cost. The combination of JSOW C and an expencive passive cruise missile seems to be a very atractive option and one that the USAF/USn is persuing. Does Storm Shadow have an anti shipping capability????
In a training scenarion or one were there was no air threat i'm sure the two strike packages could co-ordinate a simultanious launch at the same range from different barings. However if they were flying balls to the wall, at low altitude trying to get under a CAG, i seriously dount they would be able to co-ordinate to that extent.
A pair of CVF's will put the RN clearly in the no 2 spot world wide, (considering the number of dairings being built). The ability to park a couple of squadrons of F35B's in someones back yard will give the RN the kind of international reach it has missed for so long, and give the PM the ability to persue the kind of "shotgun" diplomacy that currently only the US can. Definatly great news for the RN, i am Jelous!!!!
As far as a stealthy anti ship missile, considering the work going on world wide on these systems i doubt it will belong before the RN/RAF have such a capability, unless they allready do in Storm Shadow.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Not that I know of. The only major engagement I can remember where the RN took part in either 1941 or 1942 was the Battle of the Java Sea - the IJN won that. Then there's the Indian Ocean raid, which also went Japan's way.
Sorry for the delay in replying - No I do not anticipate Russia and China having carriers equiped with aircraft more capable than F35B's but carrier to carrier strikes have not happend since WWII. However, I am sure the Kuznetsoz and Varyag (or whatever it is called now) are, or will be, potent ships and the SU-33 is a formidable aircraft.
As I said previously I am not an expert but my 'argument' (but lets not turn this into the how many missiles should a T45 have?) is based on the assumptions the F35B's are not fitted with internal BVRAAM, we have helicopter based AEW and less of a close in defence than a US carrier - I am thinking of the scenario where NATO planned to put a CBG in the Norwegian/Barents Sea to counter the Soviet Northern fleet. (and with Russia increasing naval spending and claiming a vaste swathe of the Arctic Shelf Cold war 2 may happen in, say, ten years time). Although the carrier would have escorts a longer ranged F35 with superior AEW would be beneficial in the outer layer defence against a Soviet fleet and long range bombers armed with anti-ship missiles. A Queen Elizabeth CBG would not be as effective as a Nimitz CBG.
Similarly, attacking a land bases against any strong nation would surely cause problems for the same reasons.
Basically, all I was asking was - What would be better ?
a catalpult version of the Queen Elizabeth with F35C's - longer range, more varied internal weapons, more return with unused weapons, cross decking with French and US carriers plus Hawkeye and possibly better UAVs ? or
one with F35B's, with STOL, better launch rate in bad weather (based on the VSTOL experience in the Flaklands) and whatever AEW is decided on.
Having said all that - I am not suggesting they won't be excellent ships for the VAST majority of what we need and who knows, we may get an Osprey AEW !
Sorry for the delay in posting -
That is my point. They will be the second class of carrier. I know we cannot afford a Nimitz but as an island nation and, supposedly, the fourth wealthiest nation on the planet, it is imperative that have a powerful navy but if the French have two better carriers that is not right. They are not he best we can build but the best we can afford. If money was no option surely they would have Sea Typhoon, Hawkeye and improved point defences?
Having said all that - I am not suggesting they won't be excellent ships for the VAST majority of what we will need.
Just one small question (I hope it's not too OT) by a non-professional.
I just read that NSM and JASSM rely on a passive IR seeker in their anti-ship role.
Shouldn't this be easy to counter with IR smoke launchers on ships?
Ships should have a rather big smoke discharging capability due to the available space on a ship and the relatively small size of smoke launchers.
I just read that NSM and JASSM rely on a passive IR seeker in their anti-ship role.
Shouldn't this be easy to counter with IR smoke launchers on ships?
Ships should have a rather big smoke discharging capability due to the available space on a ship and the relatively small size of smoke launchers.
Depends on what you mean by IR smoke.
Smoke is one of those things that you're never sure if it will work for you or against you. Typically, if you shroud your ship with smoke of any sort, you give a huge visual cue to anyone around, which may attract the unnecessary attention of others (submarines poking around near the surface for example, or aircraft without radar - these could form another threat you didn't have before).
If there is too much wind, your smoke is useless. Likewise, if there is no wind, or the wind that is blowing the same direction and speed as you are heading, then you end up driving blind.
Blocking IR isn't easy unless you put up a large shroud of nice hot smoke, or very dense smoke, neither of which are good things for your crew. Makes them uncomfortable and irritable. Many ships can self-contain and are mostly airtight, but there are plenty of places crew could be working where these conditions aren't immediately present.
Plus, smoke can make life very, very difficult for your aviation crew who are probably somewhere nearby, potentially even trying to land or deploy.
I can't really go into the mechanics of this (I'm not an engineer), but these are the immediate limitations that spring to mind. Just how dense or warm such smoke would have to be isn't my area of knowledge, maybe one of the boffins can clue us in.
A further note: Some ships just won't let a missile go. Oliver Hazard Perry frigates are designed to be a missile sponge, and as such have a ruddy great IR signature in the funnel. Getting an IR missile to let go of that signature is as difficult as nailing a runny mud pie to a fence.
TKWA MASS (on German, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, UAE ships) uses a multi-mode decoy (OMNI TRAP), which will create after launch:
- a cloud of chaff
- a cloud of red phosphorus heat flares
- a UV/IR obscurant fog cloud
OMNI TRAP is designed to create a "virtual" more attractive ship target (in all spectrums) for incoming missiles according to Rheinmetall.
Bullfighter decoys for SRBOC (used in Germany and Poland) similarly create a ship target in RF/IR spectra for missile sensors, the classic Hot Dog and Silver Dog (in combination) too.
All a bit more complicated than a simple smoke launcher though
Iirc the RN itself uses SRBOC and Sea Gnat? (to give this some on-topic part)
No, & I'm not aware of it being worked on.
The BROACH warhead is not optimised for wrecking ships, though it would do a lot of damage to one (as long as it was set so that the second stage didn't pass right through before exploding
), so probably another warhead would be preferred. The target set for terminal guidance would need to be changed (that's minor). It would need to be able to accept target position updates in flight. IIRC a two-way datalink is being worked on.
Last edited:
@McTaff
I thought of the smoke which is used by ground vehicles against modern TIs.
I try to adress some of the valid points you mentioned.
- Not very healthy for the crew:
Shouldn't be a problem. In the end it is not a problem for soldiers on land when driving through it, etc.
- Problem for aviation:
I don't expect helicopters trying to land while enemy missiles are incoming and this would be the situation where the smoke is used.
- The dense and heat of the smoke:
Shouldn't be bigger than that used by land vehicles or has a modern IR-seeker on such a missile a better solution than a modern TI used in land combat vehicles?
But you are right I forgot that on the high sea the wind could be a big problem.
- Makes you more visible to other threats like subs:
I expect a surface ship which maneuvers, lights up and fires missiles is visible enough for enemy observers.
- Some ships (Like OHPs) are just really big IR targets:
For sure but I expect newer ships to have a more reduced IR signature.
@Kato
Thanks for these examples. I knew that ships use thinks like SRBOC but not much more.
In the end I just thought of the reliance of the missiles on IR-seekers and then thought about the IR-smoke used by land vehicles.
With the available space on ships I expected them to be able to create a bloody big cloud of different countermeasures including IR-smoke like MASS described by you.
And I know how difficult enemy IR-smoke is for a modern TI and as I said I have some doubts about the IR-seekers of these missiles having a much better solution than a modern TI.
I thought of the smoke which is used by ground vehicles against modern TIs.
I try to adress some of the valid points you mentioned.
- Not very healthy for the crew:
Shouldn't be a problem. In the end it is not a problem for soldiers on land when driving through it, etc.
- Problem for aviation:
I don't expect helicopters trying to land while enemy missiles are incoming and this would be the situation where the smoke is used.
- The dense and heat of the smoke:
Shouldn't be bigger than that used by land vehicles or has a modern IR-seeker on such a missile a better solution than a modern TI used in land combat vehicles?
But you are right I forgot that on the high sea the wind could be a big problem.
- Makes you more visible to other threats like subs:
I expect a surface ship which maneuvers, lights up and fires missiles is visible enough for enemy observers.
- Some ships (Like OHPs) are just really big IR targets:
For sure but I expect newer ships to have a more reduced IR signature.
@Kato
Thanks for these examples. I knew that ships use thinks like SRBOC but not much more.
In the end I just thought of the reliance of the missiles on IR-seekers and then thought about the IR-smoke used by land vehicles.
With the available space on ships I expected them to be able to create a bloody big cloud of different countermeasures including IR-smoke like MASS described by you.
And I know how difficult enemy IR-smoke is for a modern TI and as I said I have some doubts about the IR-seekers of these missiles having a much better solution than a modern TI.
spsun100001
New Member
C£'s and helicopters
Some good publicity for the RN in the last couple of days with news of HMS Portland making a large seizure of drugs. The report I read said that the ships helicopter first came across the vessels from which the drugs were seized behaving suspiciously.
I'd imagine that counter drugs patrols are exactly the type of mission the RN's new C3 ships would take over from high end warfighting vessels. This recent story further underlines the need for those vessels to carry an embarked helicopter in a hanger (IMHO) if they are to fulfull that mission effectively.
Beedalls site seems to be suggesting that the C3's will have a flight deck but no hangar. I personally feel that makes them next to useless for maritime partol outside the EEZ, maritime interdiction missions and search and rescue.
These ships don't necessarily need a full combat helicopter with torpedo's and Sea Skua for these roles but I definitely believe that no hangar and therefore no long term embarked helicopter capability means we're wasting the money we plan to spend on them.
Some good publicity for the RN in the last couple of days with news of HMS Portland making a large seizure of drugs. The report I read said that the ships helicopter first came across the vessels from which the drugs were seized behaving suspiciously.
I'd imagine that counter drugs patrols are exactly the type of mission the RN's new C3 ships would take over from high end warfighting vessels. This recent story further underlines the need for those vessels to carry an embarked helicopter in a hanger (IMHO) if they are to fulfull that mission effectively.
Beedalls site seems to be suggesting that the C3's will have a flight deck but no hangar. I personally feel that makes them next to useless for maritime partol outside the EEZ, maritime interdiction missions and search and rescue.
These ships don't necessarily need a full combat helicopter with torpedo's and Sea Skua for these roles but I definitely believe that no hangar and therefore no long term embarked helicopter capability means we're wasting the money we plan to spend on them.