The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tony Williams]

I can, in respect, agree with ALL the comments you made (as I'm relatively sure your knowledge is better than mine), but still feel that the one above isn't quite right.

The opportunities for engaging fast jets (let alone missiles) with light automatic cannon are so brief (only a few seconds between being in range and being too late!) that, other things being equal, the more rounds you can fire in those few seconds, the higher your hit probability.

The new MK44 Bushmaster was first trialled in service in HMS Somerset. You can read what the CO has to say here (9 October 2007): http://hms-somerset-co.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2007-10-22T07:09:00Z&max-results=7

"Bushmaster will offer the initiative back to the warship Captain - especially against the small, fast waterborne raiding craft it is designed to counter."

From my personal opinion (& not that of any company I am, or have ever worked for), I think that there's been a comprimise of sorts, in that the RN / UK MoD have specified the guns, for 2 reasons.

#1. Commonality of spares with equipment fitted elsewhere in the fleet. (common sense & practical)

There are no other MK44 Bushmaster guns in British service.

Now, I do understand the marked difference in RoF your speaking about (as obviously the gatling style guns that are fitted to Phalanx & Golakeeper both spew out over 600 RPM in comparrison to the DSB30).

Purpose-designed 20-30mm CIWS do a lot better than that. The Goalkeeper's GAU-8/U fires at up to 4,200 rpm, the Phalanx 4,500 rpm, the Russian 30mm GSh-6-30K 5,000 rpm - and some mountings have two of these guns totalling 10,000 rpm. Why would they do this if rate of fire wasn't vitally important? It rather puts the MK44's 200 rpm into perspective...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why would they do this if rate of fire wasn't vitally important? It rather puts the MK44's 200 rpm into perspective...

I'd say that you need to factor in initial design and engagement philosophies. It's not as simple as stating that higher ROF is "better". It's a bit on an "animal farm" perspective that borders on the "2 legs good, 4 legs bad" mantra

eg initial high ROF was because the attitude was that against high speed incoming cruise missiles, it was imperative at the nominal engagement range to absolutey shred and destroy not only the missile, but any forward moving large parts that continued the journey. Incoming pieces could do just as much damage as a single kinetic kill as it could trigger a comms kill if they hit the citadel or comms farm.

I do recall some time ago (and all references for it do appear to have been pulled from the net) a report on problems wrt engagement zone, oncoming pieces and collateral damage, software issues etc... for early Phalanx and the "intent" philosophy. Goalkeeper as I understand was a design legacy of a different school of thought atuned to that prev build issue.

the software, warshot options etc... are very different now compared to Phalanx sans cold war build mentality.

 

[Systems Adict]

The new MK44 Bushmaster was first trialled in service in HMS Somerset. You can read what the CO has to say here (9 October 2007): http://hms-somerset-co.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2007-10-22T07:09:00Z&max-results=7

"Bushmaster will offer the initiative back to the warship Captain - especially against the small, fast waterborne raiding craft it is designed to counter."

There are no other MK44 Bushmaster guns in British service.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

OK, ya got me there !

The joys of the fact that I've probably mis-remembered a conversation with someone from MSI at a trade show, & that the Bushmaster can be / is offered on the same mount/base as the DS30B. (feeble excuses !)

Having said that....

http://www.msi-dsl.com/our_products/weapons/gunmount.php

It's nice to see MSI have updated their website & started naming the gun systems.(the banner-ad with HMS Daring proudly displaying her DS30B helps a bit then again, shouldn't we be calling them Seahawk L & R's ??)


Referring back to the points in my previous posting, if they're using the DS30B's (with Oerlikon KCB), on everything apart from HMS Somerset, my statement about commonality throughout the fleet still stands.

But it's a bit of a moot point.....:nutkick


SA

 

[Tony Williams]

Referring back to the points in my previous posting, if they're using the DS30B's (with Oerlikon KCB), on everything apart from HMS Somerset, my statement about commonality throughout the fleet still stands.

Some basic commonality with the mounting, true. But I believe that the intention is to gradually replace the original Oerlikon KCB throughout the fleet with the MK44. I had understood that the DS30B and the MK44 come together as a package, as far as the RN is concerned.

It's interesting that MSI mentions a choice of four guns for use with the mounting, and that these fall into two groups. The M242 and MK44 are both slow-firing Chain Guns in the Bushmaster family, optimised against surface targets. The KCB and the Mauser MK30-2 are much faster-firing (600-800 rpm) and therefore have more potential usefulness against aerial targets.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[riksavage]

Looks like the UK has finally committed to the F35, one assumes these will be STOVL versions (see below announcement). I also understand the RN is actively developing new doctrine for rolling landings and are currently testing visual equipment to allow the approaching pilots to easily gauge the angle of the deck in rough weather. The rolling landings will allow for an increase in return payload - no more dumping of fuel and/or ordinance.

Defence Secretary announcement during the recent signing in Washington DC:

"The Joint Strike Fighter will form an essential part of our Future Combat Air Capability.

By purchasing three aircraft for testing, we will secure access to the development of the programme. Working alongside their US colleagues, our pilots will gain an unrivalled understanding of this awesome aircraft and its capabilities.

This is a vital programme for UK Defence both for the military and for industry, with over 100 UK companies involved in the programme."

Also the PM is offering to cut the UK's Nuclear Deterrent, reducing the number of ballistic missiles on the next generation of SSBN's two four from sixteen. This will allow for an evolved version of the ASTUTE to be developed with an extended sail. Makes sense, retains a credible deterrent and offers cost savings. The current financial crisis means the likelihood of buying 2 x CV's, F35 & a new nuclear deterrent was a no go.

I'm happy with this, at the end of the day 4 x nuclear missiles each offering the destructive power of 100's of Hiroshima's ticks the mutually assured destruction (MAD) box without having to cancel other capital projects.

 

[kev 99]

Looks like the UK has finally committed to the F35, one assumes these will be STOVL versions (see below announcement). I also understand the RN is actively developing new doctrine for rolling landings and are currently testing visual equipment to allow the approaching pilots to easily gauge the angle of the deck in rough weather. The rolling landings will allow for an increase in return payload - no more dumping of fuel and/or ordinance.

Defence Secretary announcement during the recent signing in Washington DC:

"The Joint Strike Fighter will form an essential part of our Future Combat Air Capability.

By purchasing three aircraft for testing, we will secure access to the development of the programme. Working alongside their US colleagues, our pilots will gain an unrivalled understanding of this awesome aircraft and its capabilities.

This is a vital programme for UK Defence both for the military and for industry, with over 100 UK companies involved in the programme."

Also the PM is offering to cut the UK's Nuclear Deterrent, reducing the number of ballistic missiles on the next generation of SSBN's two four from sixteen. This will allow for an evolved version of the ASTUTE to be developed with an extended sail. Makes sense, retains a credible deterrent and offers cost savings. The current financial crisis means the likelihood of buying 2 x CV's, F35 & a new nuclear deterrent was a no go.

I'm happy with this, at the end of the day 4 x nuclear missiles each offering the destructive power of 100's of Hiroshima's ticks the mutually assured destruction (MAD) box without having to cancel other capital projects.

JSF is good news.

Not sure about the nuclear deterrent though, according to Janes its a reduction by four from sixteen to twelve.

 

[Grim901]

I'd also read that the number of tubes on the next SSBN will be 12, which seems much more likely than 4.

God news about the F35's though.

 

[ASFC]

How many SSBNs are they planing on building?

If the future SSBNs are more 'multi-role' in their use, might they build more than 4 to help with the shortage that building only 7 Astutes might bring? i.e would they consider building 5 'evolved' Astutes that could do stuff other than deterrant patrols (hence 'multi-role'), for example?

Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree?

JSF is good news as well!

 

[kev 99]

How many SSBNs are they planing on building?

If the future SSBNs are more 'multi-role' in their use, might they build more than 4 to help with the shortage that building only 7 Astutes might bring? i.e would they consider building 5 'evolved' Astutes that could do stuff other than deterrant patrols (hence 'multi-role'), for example?

Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree?

JSF is good news as well!

There have been suggestions from various media sources that the number of RN SSBNs will be reduced from 4 to 3 as the new boats will be more reliable, require less maintenance etc.

 

[windscorpion]

Making the next SSBNs multi-role would mean you would need more of them IMO to maintain a viable deterrent as your boats would be in more harm's way (a nuclear exchange is likely to be the final part of a confrontation between the major powers) and would be elsewhere from their normal patrol routes.

3 i suppose is enough but 4 gives you more security. You can make boats more reliable but you can't factor in for freak occurrences as happened a few weeks ago.

 

[AndrewMI]

I think that it would be foolish to reduce the SSBN's from 4 to 3. Reducing the numbers of tubes from 16 to 12 seems sensible and would presumably make the sub more comfortable and cheaper to maintain etc. 12 Tridents can take more than enough warheads to maintain a credible deterrant - the current boats operate at a fairly low level of total capacity (warhead wise).

Keeping a fleet of 4 SSBN's and 8-10 SSN's is important to the RN as it gives a capability few other navies have.

The new FSC is of vital importance to the RN, and will shape he make up of the fleet for the next 25 years plus. Key to this is to develop (as "C1") a high class of vessel that is capable of power projection (i.e. with Tomahawk/Scalp) a class of vessel for more mundane dutues (as "C2") and a multi-purpose C3 vessel.

 

[riksavage]

4 x SSBN's is an absolute minimum - 1 transiting back from its designated patrol area, one travelling to its designated patrol area, 1 in active reserve / training, one in refit.

By basing the design on the ASTUTE, already a very large SSN, you are building on current proprietary knowledge, using common systems and a common reactor. The only question mark apparently is the design and size of the new missiles, which will be an American one.

 

[AndrewMI]

riksavage

I thought the "new" missile was an upgraded/refurbished Trident missile? Agreed on the numbers. It also allows some leeway for incidents like we saw recently.

I think Astute is a good basis for an SSBN, but hopefully the lessons learnt from Astute (technology/construction etc) will be applied and will work. It must be at least a decade behind schedule by now!

An advanced submarine force is critical to maintaining a world leading navy. A top fleet of SSN's is something only a handful of navies can deploy. All we need is a comparable surface fleet.

 

[Grim901]

riksavage

I thought the "new" missile was an upgraded/refurbished Trident missile? Agreed on the numbers. It also allows some leeway for incidents like we saw recently.

I think Astute is a good basis for an SSBN, but hopefully the lessons learnt from Astute (technology/construction etc) will be applied and will work. It must be at least a decade behind schedule by now!

An advanced submarine force is critical to maintaining a world leading navy. A top fleet of SSN's is something only a handful of navies can deploy. All we need is a comparable surface fleet.

The Tridents are being refurbished to extend their lives, meaning they will serve for a few years on the new SSBNs, but after that a new missile will be required, which is where problems could come in, hence the fairly recent news that we're planning on designing our new missile compartments in conjunction with the Americans so they're less likely to design a missile we can't use.

The timing is going to be tight, it was only yesterday I read that they think that any delay over a year or so will leave a gap in our deterrent patrols because of the time scale for getting the new SSBN's in the water.

The decision on whether 3 or 4 boats (4 is obviously more sensible) will be needed isn't going to happen before 2014 though, that was from a BBC news article yesterday I think.

I agree our advanced SSN force is a very good thing, especially since it even seems to be filling conventional land attack roles now (Tomahawks). Pity it'll drop to 7 despite the governments own minimum requirement of 8. The only excuse they've given for that is that the SSBN's will need to start being built before an 8th could be finished. I guess a new class will be started right after the SSBNs are done, but that's so far in the future it's not even worth thinking about.

@AndrewMI: None of our surface fleet currently have the land attack capability you mentioned C1 as having, it's all provided by the SSN force right now. When we invaded Iraq the targets we hit were all by Tomahawks from the Trafalgar's. Have you heard that they are actually going to fit them with cruise missiles or was that just your hope?

 

[AndrewMI]

Thanks for that.

It seems to me that the sensible option would be to jointly develop a new class of SSBN with the US and build them in the UK.

7 SSN's is hardly bad, and with the ending of the Cold War they are not as crucial as they once were. However, with Russia's future plans looking more and more expansionist, having a few extra boats would not go amis.

Yes, no surface vessel has Tomahawk or SCALP. I do not know whether C1 will have a cruise missile capability, but i would certainly hope so if it is designated as a high level surface attack vessel. You would expect a weapons fit including Tomahawk, TASM, Harpoon in order to remain effective. The fact that a ship fitted with cruise missile capability can attack targets thousands of kilometers away should not be underestimated - it is a significant power.

I think we find out soon(ish) as FSC hits initial gate next month i think.

The RN has potential to become a very powerful force over the next decade, if not numericaly!

 

[Tony Williams]

The RN has potential to become a very powerful force over the next decade, if not numericaly!

When I see what's happened to the RN over the past few decades and how each programme has been scaled back, I keep thinking that sometime later in this century we'll arrive at the stage suggested by the quip:

"The Royal Navy: fitted for, but not with, warships."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[MrQuintus]

Thanks for that.

It seems to me that the sensible option would be to jointly develop a new class of SSBN with the US and build them in the UK.

7 SSN's is hardly bad, and with the ending of the Cold War they are not as crucial as they once were. However, with Russia's future plans looking more and more expansionist, having a few extra boats would not go amis.

Yes, no surface vessel has Tomahawk or SCALP. I do not know whether C1 will have a cruise missile capability, but i would certainly hope so if it is designated as a high level surface attack vessel. You would expect a weapons fit including Tomahawk, TASM, Harpoon in order to remain effective. The fact that a ship fitted with cruise missile capability can attack targets thousands of kilometers away should not be underestimated - it is a significant power.

I think we find out soon(ish) as FSC hits initial gate next month i think.

The RN has potential to become a very powerful force over the next decade, if not numericaly!

7 SSNs is terrible, as is 6 Type 45s (frankly that's insanity), remember, as it stands the CVFs have no Air defence save for CIWS, something which the Americans, French, Italians and the Japanese (Hyuga class) have realised is essential for a capital ship, even the spanish are planning ESSM for the Juan Carlos, the treatment of the RN by the current Government has been nothing less than contemptuous, with defence reviews bringing cuts, and then promised levels being cut even further between defence reviews, it is disgusting.

As for FSC, don't hold your breath, what needs to be a competant multirole heavy frigate/cruiser will be delayed and the fist ships built will be the barely bluewater enhanced OPVs, bet your life on it.

I can't wait for this governemnt to be gone!

 

[AndrewMI]

Mr Quintus

I don't think you will have to wait long on the new government front!

However, i do not mind a navy that is small in number (of high level warships) so long as they are excellent vessels. The C2 can make up the numbers performing drugs busts, piracy missions and flag waving.

The Typs 45 should have a greater capability in terms of land/ship attack (i.e. Harpoon and Tomahawk in limited numbers). It makes a huge difference. Reality is that in future it might need some form of ABM capability, so the room for growth on the design may well be used.

FSC. Who knows. Anything passed this year might well be looked at after the next election - regardless of who wins.

 

[swerve]

Type 45 doesn't have any land attack capability at the moment (fitted "for but not with" Harpoon, innit?), & can't fire Tomahawk unless it has new VLS fitted, of a type it does not currently have. Sylver A50 isn't big enough for Tomahawk. It would need either some Mk 41 strike length, which would not fire its current missiles, unless the UK paid for integration, or some Sylver A70 - and the UK would have to pay to integrate Tomahawk.

 

[Grim901]

Type 45 doesn't have any land attack capability at the moment (fitted "for but not with" Harpoon, innit?), & can't fire Tomahawk unless it has new VLS fitted, of a type it does not currently have. Sylver A50 isn't big enough for Tomahawk. It would need either some Mk 41 strike length, which would not fire its current missiles, unless the UK paid for integration, or some Sylver A70 - and the UK would have to pay to integrate Tomahawk.

I don't think they're even for but not with on the harpoon front, I think the party line is "space to add them if needed in the future."

7 SSN's is clearly a disgrace considering we need 6 at all times and 6 Type 45's is useless considering the previous class was of 14 ships. No matter how powerful a ship is it can't be in 2 places at once. It wouldn't have mattered quite as much if they'd found a little room in the biggest ships we've ever built for Seawolf/Sea Viper/ESSM/CAMM. It didn't even need VLS, just a bolt on ESSM canister or 2 would have done.

If I could bring about another Falklands type scenario without endangering sailors I would, if for no other reason than to hammer into the politicians heads what it is they're doing to the navy. Nothing like a sunken ship or 2 to show you up.