The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASFC]

Get real T23 will never be refitted with any new SAM, it will cost to much when they are to old, hopefully the RN has learned that from the Leander heavy rebuilds in 70s ...still you never know they good at forgetting nearly every other lesson.

How can it be CAMM when the RN has gone off and brought Aster 30. I don't have the detail on CAMM size but surely it will be similar size to Aster 15? or we could just instal quad pack Crotale. When is CAMM due 10 years time?? Once again the French are ahead Aster 30/15 is to be deployed as a common SAM in the Navy and on Land about now?

Really? Take a good read, its about half way down: http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/d...chesanewapproachtoacquiringcomplexweapons.htm

Sea Wolf isn't going to last forever, and the Type 23s aren't going anywhere for a while, something will have to give.

And I don't think the RAF does have its head in the sand-even the aircraft you suggested, the Hawk 200, is a fast jet. And frankly the Tornado is the Cold War Warrior, whereas the Typhoon represents the backbone of our Air Force in the future, in both the Air-to-Air and Ground Attack roles. In fact, the RAF could probably quite safely offer up Tranche 3b up for cancellation knowing that they have enough Eurofighters on order to satisfy the requirement to operate 144 of them. However, it is something for the RAF thread.....

 

[regstrup]

Absalon: great-range, but armed like a C3. Take-out command-and-control and whats left? *

* Not fair. Absalon is a Logistics vessel.

No, this is not fair at all, as the Absalon is not a logistics vessel. It is a large fregate, with and extra flexible deck, which originally was intented to equipt for minelaying and command-and-control and then secondly for logistics.

This picture give a good view of the ship. So there sould been much doubt, that it is primarily a fregate.

Absalon seen from the air

In the meantime we have to make do with a mini dock for RIBS, the Absalon's can carry CB90s!

Well, it is not the CB90H, which is most often seen with the Swedish Coastal Rangers, but its smaller cousin, the CB90E, which can only carry 10 passengers or soldiers and it it not armed like the CB90H.

Combatboat 90E

I'm a little confused. I don't see any mention of a dock well. A loading ramp, yes - but I understand that to be something like the boat ramp at the stern of Absalon.

Swerve, you are absoulutly right, that the Absalon dosen't have a dock well. It has a loading ramp and a sort of boat ramp. You can see both of them on the first picture with the loading ramp to the right and the boat ramp to the left:

Absalon seen from the stern

Boat ramp

Loading ramp

 

[1805]

duplicate deleted

 

[1805]

Really? Take a good read, its about half way down: Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | MOD launches a new approach to acquiring Complex Weapons

Sea Wolf isn't going to last forever, and the Type 23s aren't going anywhere for a while, something will have to give.

I think you have to be sceptical about what the MOD/RN say, they may genuinely believe what is said, but the facts look very different. If CAMM is going to be available in c10 years, assuming not late and most thing MOD do are late? Then that is c 2020 at which time the bulk of the T23 will be 30-25 years old. The 4 youngest 18-23 years. Unless it is a very simple slot in the existing silos (I don't know but unlikely?) they would be mad to waste money on big refits for 2-7 years service (I suspect few will do much over 25 years). I am not sure the current 13 will all survive the coming defence cuts, and HMS Grafton (1997) was on of the newer ones, so any sales might be later ones? I wouldn't be surprised if CAMM is a casualty of the defence cuts, the RAF/Army are fairly indifferent to SAMs and the RN have brought Aster 30 so 15 makes more sense, probably makes sense for MBDA aswell as they make Aster. It is just such muddled thinking that is wrong with UK defence procurement. A CAMM made sense 30 years ago based around Sea Dart, now sadly we have little choice but to buy French.

And I don't think the RAF does have its head in the sand-even the aircraft you suggested, the Hawk 200, is a fast jet. And frankly the Tornado is the Cold War Warrior, whereas the Typhoon represents the backbone of our Air Force in the future, in both the Air-to-Air and Ground Attack roles. In fact, the RAF could probably quite safely offer up Tranche 3b up for cancellation knowing that they have enough Eurofighters on order to satisfy the requirement to operate 144 of them. However, it is something for the RAF thread.....

The Hawk 200 costs c12m and has the potential to be a light A10/A4 role. It is Relevant ot the RN thread as I was suggesting we use the development in the Goshawk to make a lightweight attack plane for the CVs to make up numbers for the F35 ( i suspect we will be lucky to get 80-90). The current trend in ground support is for smaller guided munitions so we don't need the vast carrying capacity of Tornado.

BTW the Typhoon is the Cold War warrior it just missed it by 20 years the Tornado (although again i would never have built) is a very capable bomber....don't be so ageist the B52 is still in service. The Tornados will go not because they are past it, just because we can't afford them.. (but that is for the RAF thread)

 

[1805]

No, this is not fair at all, as the Absalon is not a logistics vessel. It is a large fregate, with and extra flexible deck, which originally was intented to equipt for minelaying and command-and-control and then secondly for logistics.

This picture give a good view of the ship. So there sould been much doubt, that it is primarily a fregate.

Absalon seen from the air


Well, it is not the CB90H, which is most often seen with the Swedish Coastal Rangers, but its smaller cousin, the CB90E, which can only carry 10 passengers or soldiers and it it not armed like the CB90H.

Combatboat 90E


Swerve, you are absoulutly right, that the Absalon dosen't have a dock well. It has a loading ramp and a sort of boat ramp. You can see both of them on the first picture with the loading ramp to the right and the boat ramp to the left:

Absalon seen from the stern

Boat ramp

Loading ramp

I didn't realise CB90e was different, mind they still look good boats, I'm sure they could be fitted with .50 cals without to much difficulty and better than RIBS! Thanks for the pictures the more I see of the Absalon the more I think what a brilliant and innovative concept. How useful would this type of ship be off Haiti, Lebanon in 2006, or even Sierra Leone, immediate application of sea power without having to wait for full assault ships.

 

[swerve]

Get real T23 will never be refitted with any new SAM, it will cost to much when they are to old, hopefully the RN has learned that from the Leander heavy rebuilds in 70s ...still you never know they good at forgetting nearly every other lesson.

A common missile across all services has been an obvious opportunity to everyone apart from the defence establishment for years, but the RAF is not interested in advanced SAMs, it abandoned serious missile defence in the earlier 70s and focuses all is money on Jets. There was a proposal to use Sea Dart as a land based system but it jsut died. Sead Dart would also have been a better weapon for T23/T22 (obviously it would need to have been in VLS) and removing the need to buy Harpoon. This would have helped logistic, but more importantly our limited funds could have been focused on one missile. Who knows if this had been done then we may have seen it matched to Samson in the later 90s and an active verison about now.

How can it be CAMM when the RN has gone off and brought Aster 30. I don't have the detail on CAMM size but surely it will be similar size to Aster 15? or we could just instal quad pack Crotale. When is CAMM due 10 years time?? Once again the French are ahead Aster 30/15 is to be deployed as a common SAM in the Navy and on Land about now?

CAMM is much smaller (well under half the weight) & cheaper than Aster 15. It's intended as a direct Seawolf replacement. It will not need a rebuild. The last T23s are intended to be modernised with CAMM & Artisan, & then stay in service until the 2030s. This is all official, public, widely disseminated. The French have Crotale on board some of their ships, & Mistral, & are planning to introduce Mica VL (i.e. a missile similar to CAMM). They're not standardising on Aster 15/30.

Sea Dart was too big, & needed too much in the way of radar, for the T23. It would have compromised their primary ASW role to fit something with such a large footprint. It would not have removed the need to buy Harpoon, as it's greatly inferior in the anti-ship role (fair enough, it's a SAM - & infinitely superior to Harpoon in that role). It's a semi-active missile, therefore limited to line of sight, with a warhead a tenth (almost exactly) the size of Harpoons warhead. It's useful against the same sort of targets as Sea Skua, i.e. small vessels.

 

[1805]

CAMM is much smaller (well under half the weight) & cheaper than Aster 15. It's intended as a direct Seawolf replacement. It will not need a rebuild. The last T23s are intended to be modernised with CAMM & Artisan, & then stay in service until the 2030s. This is all official, public, widely disseminated. The French have Crotale on board some of their ships, & Mistral, & are planning to introduce Mica VL (i.e. a missile similar to CAMM). They're not standardising on Aster 15/30.

Sea Dart was too big, & needed too much in the way of radar, for the T23. It would not have removed the need to buy Harpoon. It's a semi-active missile.

I know thats what they say, i just doubt it will happen money will be to tight and I don't think it makes sense, I wouldn't risk one F35 for it, you must admit it looks marginal it will happen, even from this distance.

The T42 didn't have Harpoon and I think the value of fitting Harpoon like missiles on full sized escorts is not great. The USN is gradually moving away from them and relying on Standard. The warheads on SAMs are smaller but the hitting power/higher speed makes up and the targets are most likely FAC, where warhead size is not going to be an issue.

Sea Dart had draft verions with lighter radar fits, as did Sea Wolf, the original Sea Wolf system was nearly as big as a T42. The huge value would have been on focusing development on one missile, not having two underfunded versions. This is not a radical approach the USN largely abandoned point defence systems and focused on Standard in the 70s Perry's. Had this been done we would have the basis of a British Missile. Yes it is semi active but Standard is just moving over to fully active systems now, which could have been about same time for Sea Dart could have been. Most costal engagements with FAC are not going to be over the horizon, and if they are a helicopter will get them.

 

[swerve]

Dammit, where do I start?

If you want to sink FACs, why waste big, expensive SAMs which are restricted to line of sight? Why not do what the RN actually did, with great success, & use helicopter-launched Sea Skua? Worked very well indeed against FACs. Remember, if they're close enough to hit with Sea Dart, they can kill you with their missiles - and you don't have a lot of Sea Darts. A T23 packs more Seawolf than it could carry Sea Dart, & that is a Good Thing.

Yes, Sea Dart could have been developed further, & the failure to do so can be seen as a wasted opportunity. But it would still not be a logical alternative to a self-defence missile for ASW & smaller vessels. Why do you think we have Seawolf? And why do you think the French bought Naval Crotale? Or the USN bought RAM? You seem to think that all naval decision makers have got it wrong on SAMs.

Yes, the USN is moving away from Harpoon on surface ships, because it thinks the threat it was meant to counter has gone away, for the USN. Could be right. But that was not the case for us when we bought Harpoon. We had the Red Fleet to worry about.

Oh, & what are you replying to with this?

I know thats what they say, i just doubt it will happen money will be to tight and I don't think it makes sense

 

[1805]

CAMM is much smaller (well under half the weight) & cheaper than Aster 15. It's intended as a direct Seawolf replacement. It will not need a rebuild. The last T23s are intended to be modernised with CAMM & Artisan, & then stay in service until the 2030s. This is all official, public, widely disseminated. The French have Crotale on board some of their ships, & Mistral, & are planning to introduce Mica VL (i.e. a missile similar to CAMM). They're not standardising on Aster 15/30.

Sea Dart was too big, & needed too much in the way of radar, for the T23. It would have compromised their primary ASW role to fit something with such a large footprint. It would not have removed the need to buy Harpoon, as it's greatly inferior in the anti-ship role (fair enough, it's a SAM - & infinitely superior to Harpoon in that role). It's a semi-active missile, therefore limited to line of sight, with a warhead a tenth (almost exactly) the size of Harpoons warhead. It's useful against the same sort of targets as Sea Skua, i.e. small vessels.

I missed your update while I was correcing typos! I think warhead is not an issue the Exocet that destroyed the Sheffeld didn't detonate. Full sized escorts are not likely to engage other warships this is the work of aircraft helicpoter/carrier

 

[swerve]

I do like the Venator concept, but it is not an official design just a industry proposal and I think unlikely to be the end design, I don't see what it offers over the Clyde other than better boat handling. I seem to be missing something, but I can't see any helicopter hanger facility in the video, it looks exclusively a boat hanger.

If you read up on it (easy to do - look at the BVT website) you will see that it says Venator can have a telescopic helicopter hangar.

 

[1805]

Dammit, where do I start?

If you want to sink FACs, why waste big, expensive SAMs which are restricted to line of sight? Why not do what the RN actually did, with great success, & use helicopter-launched Sea Skua? Worked very well indeed against FACs. Remember, if they're close enough to hit with Sea Dart, they can kill you with their missiles - and you don't have a lot of Sea Darts. A T23 packs more Seawolf than it could carry Sea Dart, & that is a Good Thing.

You have answered your own question here, my argument why fit Harpoon when helicopters will do the work Sea Dart or Standard as SSM would be just last ditch.

Yes, Sea Dart could have been developed further, & the failure to do so can be seen as a wasted opportunity. But it would still not be a logical alternative to a self-defence missile for ASW & smaller vessels. Why do you think we have Seawolf? And why do you think the French bought Naval Crotale?

The reason the French developed Crotale was because at the time it was all they could afford to develop, the crushing cost of a truely independant deterrent meant they had to rely on 3.9" guns for longer than most. Ironically they tables are now reversed!
Or the USN bought RAM? You seem to think that all naval decision makers have got it wrong on SAMs.

No I just thing the RN have, I would be happy to be where the French are (in there Navy procurement) with the far more limited resources their Navy enjoys. Also the Spanish, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Australians, Japanese and of course USN seemed to have got it right.

Yes, the USN is moving away from Harpoon on surface ships, because it thinks the threat it was meant to counter has gone away, for the USN. Could be right. But that was not the case for us when we bought Harpoon. We had the Red Fleet to worry about.

First point covers this the Faklands confirm what we learnt at the Battle of Midway that aircraft are the primary way to destroy ships not surface ships.

 

[swerve]

I missed your update while I was correcing typos! I think warhead is not an issue the Exocet that destroyed the Sheffeld didn't detonate. Full sized escorts are not likely to engage other warships this is the work of aircraft helicpoter/carrier

1) That was a magic bullet type shot. It had the extraordinary good luck to disable the firefighting systems, while setting the ship on fire with its unburnt fuel. If it had hit almost any other point, the ship would have been saved. Glamorgan survived an Exocet hit. USS Stark survived two. What would a (smaller, lighter) Sea Dart have done to them?

2) Depends on the navy, & the circumstances. At the time we bought Harpoon, we would not have had the luxury of making such choices. Even the USN didn't think it could leave escorts without anti-ship weapons back then. And I've already made that point.

 

[1805]

Dammit, where do I start?

If you want to sink FACs, why waste big, expensive SAMs which are restricted to line of sight? Why not do what the RN actually did, with great success, & use helicopter-launched Sea Skua? Worked very well indeed against FACs. Remember, if they're close enough to hit with Sea Dart, they can kill you with their missiles - and you don't have a lot of Sea Darts. A T23 packs more Seawolf than it could carry Sea Dart, & that is a Good Thing.

Yes, Sea Dart could have been developed further, & the failure to do so can be seen as a wasted opportunity. But it would still not be a logical alternative to a self-defence missile for ASW & smaller vessels. Why do you think we have Seawolf? And why do you think the French bought Naval Crotale? Or the USN bought RAM? You seem to think that all naval decision makers have got it wrong on SAMs.

Yes, the USN is moving away from Harpoon on surface ships, because it thinks the threat it was meant to counter has gone away, for the USN. Could be right. But that was not the case for us when we bought Harpoon. We had the Red Fleet to worry about.

Oh, & what are you replying to with this?

Oh on this I was just saying although the Navy say they will install CAMM, on T23 I think money will be to tight and it will not happen. If the Navy does face a 10-20% cut we have to ask what will go? It would be better for the RN if that anticipate and take a planned sensible approach rather than ducking the issue and leaving the politicans to take an uneducated butchers knife to it.

 

[swerve]

Dammit, where do I start?

If you want to sink FACs, why waste big, expensive SAMs which are restricted to line of sight? Why not do what the RN actually did, with great success, & use helicopter-launched Sea Skua? Worked very well indeed against FACs. Remember, if they're close enough to hit with Sea Dart, they can kill you with their missiles - and you don't have a lot of Sea Darts. A T23 packs more Seawolf than it could carry Sea Dart, & that is a Good Thing.

You have answered your own question here, my argument why fit Harpoon when helicopters will do the work Sea Dart or Standard as SSM would be just last ditch.

Yes, Sea Dart could have been developed further, & the failure to do so can be seen as a wasted opportunity. But it would still not be a logical alternative to a self-defence missile for ASW & smaller vessels. Why do you think we have Seawolf? And why do you think the French bought Naval Crotale?

The reason the French developed Crotale was because at the time it was all they could afford to develop, the crushing cost of a truely independant deterrent meant they had to rely on 3.9" guns for longer than most. Ironically they tables are now reversed!
Or the USN bought RAM? You seem to think that all naval decision makers have got it wrong on SAMs.

No I just thing the RN have, I would be happy to be where the French are (in there Navy procurement) with the far more limited resources their Navy enjoys. Also the Spanish, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Australians, Japanese and of course USN seemed to have got it right.

Yes, the USN is moving away from Harpoon on surface ships, because it thinks the threat it was meant to counter has gone away, for the USN. Could be right. But that was not the case for us when we bought Harpoon. We had the Red Fleet to worry about.

First point covers this the Faklands confirm what we learnt at the Battle of Midway that aircraft are the primary way to destroy ships not surface ships.

You are changing your arguments as you go along, without acknowledging the validity of the arguments which have refuted your original claims. There's a nasty word for that.

You claimed that fitting Sea Dart to T23s would have rendered Harpoon unnecessary. I pointed out that Sea Dart was a poor anti-ship missile. You said it would be useful against FACs, which would be the most likely targets. I reminded you that helicopters are far better anti-FAC weapons. You claim I've validated your first claim. Complete nonsense! I have refuted your first claim.

BTW, Sea Dart would be completely useless as a last ditch anti-ship weapon. If it's within range of Sea Dart, it's within range of its own anti-ship missiles, & you don't want that if you can avoid it. You're going to need every Sea Dart you have to shoot them down, & a larger number of self-defence missiles would be better for that. I've already made this point, & you've ignored it.

This appears to be part of a pattern. You keep repeating arguments I have replied to, without acknowledging my responses. The same nasty word applies to that. Would you care to review your debating style?

 

[swerve]

Oh on this I was just saying although the Navy say they will install CAMM, on T23 I think money will be to tight and it will not happen. If the Navy does face a 10-20% cut we have to ask what will go? It would be better for the RN if that anticipate and take a planned sensible approach rather than ducking the issue and leaving the politicans to take an uneducated butchers knife to it.

So . . . what you're saying is that the RN will carry on for the next 25+ years with Seawolf, or that it'll give up having SAMs on many of its escorts? What about Artisan? Will that not be fitted? Will we have escorts going to sea with no radar, or will the current radars be carried over from T23 to C1 & C2, & the RN have the oldest radars in the world on its ships?

If you read the sources you have been directed to, you will discover that Artisan & CAMM are intended to be used to modernise all but the oldest T23s, & then be carried over to C1 & C2.

 

[1805]

You are changing your arguments as you go along, without acknowledging the validity of the arguments which have refuted your original claims. There's a nasty word for that.

You claimed that fitting Sea Dart to T23s would have rendered Harpoon unnecessary. I pointed out that Sea Dart was a poor anti-ship missile. You said it would be useful against FACs, which would be the most likely targets. I reminded you that helicopters are far better anti-FAC weapons. You claim I've validated your first claim. Complete nonsense! I have refuted your first claim.

BTW, Sea Dart would be completely useless as a last ditch anti-ship weapon. If it's within range of Sea Dart, it's within range of its own anti-ship missiles, & you don't want that if you can avoid it. You're going to need every Sea Dart you have to shoot them down, & a larger number of self-defence missiles would be better for that. I've already made this point, & you've ignored it.

This appears to be part of a pattern. You keep repeating arguments I have replied to, without acknowledging my responses. The same nasty word applies to that. Would you care to review your debating style?

Actually i don't think we are that far apart, and certainly not meaning to fall out over any depate. I enjoy the intelligent responses you make. I am not a professional in this, but I am very frustated by how poorly we seem to be doing against other navies that don't enjoy anything like the resource the RN does.

I agree helicopters are the way to deal with FAC, and so don't see the need for harpoon like missles, yes better to have than not but if the money could be spent elsewhere we should have done. Sea Dart would have been adequate if one had got through, but as you say if they are close enough for Sea Dart your dead! (though USN used at Standard on an Iranian ship i think?)

i do think even if Sheffield had not burned the impact would have put here out of action and small warheads can do this such as the USS Worden incident, but again agree Harpoon/skua/Sea Eagle from aircraft much better.

It is all theoretical as saidly Sea Dart not developed, but I think there is learning from studying the past.

Please don't take offence, none is intended, also I think we both think the Abalson Class are a great concept

 

[1805]

So . . . what you're saying is that the RN will carry on for the next 25+ years with Seawolf, or that it'll give up having SAMs on many of its escorts? What about Artisan? Will that not be fitted? Will we have escorts going to sea with no radar, or will the current radars be carried over from T23 to C1 & C2, & the RN have the oldest radars in the world on its ships?

If you read the sources you have been directed to, you will discover that Artisan & CAMM are intended to be used to modernise all but the oldest T23s, & then be carried over to C1 & C2.

No that is unfair I am just saying it is unlikely we would fit CAMM on 4 old T23 when they will only have 2-7 years left, they would probably carry on with an ageing Sea Wolf, not the first time the RN has sent ships to sea with obsolete weapons (Sea Slug, Sea Cat)

Yes CAMM will go into C1 & C2, unless it gets cancelled in which case they will end up with no doubt with Aster 15, ESSM or MICA.

I also doubt the T23 will make it beyond 25 years as the escort force will sadly probably be less than 20 by then (if the past is anything to go by)

 

[kev 99]

though USN used at Standard on an Iranian ship i think?

The Iranian FAC Joshan was hit by 3 standards, USS Bagley finally sunk it with its 5" gun.

 

[swerve]

OK. We have a little problem with Harpoon here. I agree that at the moment, the RN probably doesn't need a ship-launched anti-ship missile like Harpoon. BUT - I do not think that was true when we bought Exocet & Harpoon, & I'm getting frustrated by your failure to acknowledge this argument.

Times change. The RN back then had to face the prospect of large numbers of Soviet warships much larger than FACs, Soviet bombers (both carrying heavy anti-ship missiles), & naval air being extremely busy. SAMs had to be reserved for shooting down aircraft & missiles, & weapons were needed against all those Soviet surface ships, lest they be encountered when no air support or friendly submarines were available.

Would you care to reply to the above?

Sheffield might have been put out of action, but certainly not sunk, if she had not burned - and the fire consumed her only because it was such a lucky shot.

USS Worden was hit by two ARMs. She then proceeded under her own power to port, was repaired in 10 days, & then returned to duty. I don't think that proves that small warheads can sink major warships, or even disable them unless they get a pretty lucky hit.

Yes, we agree on Absalon - and don't forget Esbern Snare.

 

[swerve]

No that is unfair I am just saying it is unlikely we would fit CAMM on 4 old T23 when they will only have 2-7 years left, they would probably carry on with an ageing Sea Wolf, not the first time the RN has sent ships to sea with obsolete weapons (Sea Slug, Sea Cat)

Yes CAMM will go into C1 & C2, unless it gets cancelled in which case they will end up with no doubt with Aster 15, ESSM or MICA.

I also doubt the T23 will make it beyond 25 years as the escort force will sadly probably be less than 20 by then (if the past is anything to go by)

CAMM is scheduled to be fitted to a lot more than 4 T23s, & they should have up to 20 years of service remaining, according to the latest schedule. CAMM fitting from ca 2015, last retirement by 2035. And that schedule was revised to save money, by postponing the building of new ships. To keep Seawolf usable, we'll either have to build new missiles, or rebuild (probably cost as much) old ones. It might be cheaper to fit CAMM. Removing the Seawolf tracking radars is billed as saving money in operating costs, & replacing current radars with Artisan as paying for itself over the ships remaining lifetime by reducing running costs. That old kit needs a lot of TLC.