The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
In regards to this interesting conversation reamber Harpoon has a land attack option (I can't rember if this is an extra or built in new blocks). this would make an effectivish deterrence it would have a larger warhead than Fire shadow and a combination of the two plus helo and ideally a 155mm gun would make a quite effective land attack without TLAM. Combined with a small detachment of RM might make an effective 1st responder unit. Fire shadow meant to be intergrated in the CAMM VL isn't it? cell of 32. 16 AAW missiles 16 fire shadow plus another 4+ Harpoons
The UK is perfectly able to design and build its own ship, mainly because it keeps the design skill base alive, buy Fremm and you lose that, besides the Uk has needs that maybe Fremm doesnt meet, eg bulk of UK system content..
You right, nevertheless it's sad to see such a vaste.
EADS Astrium Stevenage has been given a £400m contract for a 4th Skynet Satelite securing 300 jobs , some good news for a change. It would also suggest that when we finish with the need to downstream footage from Afghanistan, there is going to be a huge amount of bandwidth for UK Forces to play about with. Thats a hell of a pricetag, but should mean the sailors on the Type 45 should be able to get uninterupted porn on their laptops and top up their Ipods with the latest tunes.
Following up on 1805's ideas about a flexible Absalon like ship;
Maybe we could recast this;
That'll be a "real" warship, I imagine that this warship could untop of the ASW business also be an effective surface combattan as well as having significant air defense cababilities.
"land attack and coastal suppression"
It has a 5" gun and maybe you can fit in provisions for f.ex a criuisemissile on the main weapon deck. After all it's a large ship.
"small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection, chokepoint escort"
Tjeck.
"embarked military force".
An Abs can carry 200 additional men (for extended time) and has room for 2 medium or 3 small helicopers, allowing airborne insertion. There is also 1-2 fast crafts (small boats) that are launced from the well (dock, not sure what the correct term is) connected to the flex deck.
"MCM capability,"
Not a cabability of the ABS-class. Though I quess that the flexdeck-dock/well (unsure of correct word) could also lunch anti-mine drones etc. Personally I think It don't sound right to send a high value asset into a minefield, though the original C1 has that oddity as well.
Further more the Abs class are suited as a hospitalship, minelayer, transport and commandship.
Ofcourse the ship can't do all roles at once. It relies on flexibility allowing a given unit to (quickly) change role into what ever needed.
Maybe we could recast this;
Into
That'll be a "real" warship, I imagine that this warship could untop of the ASW business also be an effective surface combattan as well as having significant air defense cababilities.
I think an uprated Absalon class can do that.
"land attack and coastal suppression"
It has a 5" gun and maybe you can fit in provisions for f.ex a criuisemissile on the main weapon deck. After all it's a large ship.
"small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection, chokepoint escort"
Tjeck.
"embarked military force".
An Abs can carry 200 additional men (for extended time) and has room for 2 medium or 3 small helicopers, allowing airborne insertion. There is also 1-2 fast crafts (small boats) that are launced from the well (dock, not sure what the correct term is) connected to the flex deck.
"MCM capability,"
Not a cabability of the ABS-class. Though I quess that the flexdeck-dock/well (unsure of correct word) could also lunch anti-mine drones etc. Personally I think It don't sound right to send a high value asset into a minefield, though the original C1 has that oddity as well.
Further more the Abs class are suited as a hospitalship, minelayer, transport and commandship.
Ofcourse the ship can't do all roles at once. It relies on flexibility allowing a given unit to (quickly) change role into what ever needed.
Well its not a waste because there will be plenty of Fremms built and sailing with RN and other nations ships in euro/nato ops, variety is a good thing. After the Horizon/Type 45 being separate strands of a so called joint project, I doubt the UK will be jumping into bed with the French in a hurry for escorts, sad in many ways, there is just too much nationl pride/selfishness/workshare issues at stake when we seem to try.
I think variety is a bad thing, because it cost money, and as an old roman once said: Money forms the sinews of war.
"there is just too much nationl pride/selfishness/workshare issues at stake when we seem to try"
Yes, unfortunately.
(*Endless money forms the sinews of war - Cicero)
F-100 varient would seem to be something they should look at, perhaps without AEGIS. Australia is building ~8 off the hull. SM missiles (2 and 6), ESSM, harpoon etc. Right size, right functions, should be right price.
UK and Aust have close defence links and have previously worked on projects where they didn't screw each other. While the Hull is licenced from the Spanish, intergration and development of systems and enhancements could be shared between the two countries.
I would imagine there would be a huge benefit for training between the two navies if they once again operated the same ships.
48 Cells should be enough for any body (harpoon are carried in tubes and are additional to this number).
I think all new build harpoons have land attack capabilities (GPS in combination to existing sensors). Land attack harpoons use Tactom warheads. But either warhead would destroy most targets.
UK and Aust have close defence links and have previously worked on projects where they didn't screw each other. While the Hull is licenced from the Spanish, intergration and development of systems and enhancements could be shared between the two countries.
I would imagine there would be a huge benefit for training between the two navies if they once again operated the same ships.
48 Cells should be enough for any body (harpoon are carried in tubes and are additional to this number).
I think all new build harpoons have land attack capabilities (GPS in combination to existing sensors). Land attack harpoons use Tactom warheads. But either warhead would destroy most targets.
The UK would not go for a F100 design, the only one the RN would (apparently) consider looking at in more detail is a variant of the Dutch De Zeven Provincien Class, which is generally accepted as being one of, if not the best European Frigate currently sailing the seven seas.
Also I would be surprised not to see TacTom in the specs. With a max of only seven Astute planned we need more TacTom capable platforms. In certain circumstances the UK may just want to send a warning (show of force), an overt asset capable of firing a long range land attack munition. Submarines by their very nature are not overt, so are unable to display thier colours so to speak.
De Zeven Provincien Class (LCF) Air Defence and Command Frigates - Naval Technology
Last edited:
Perhaps. Althought Harpoon lacks the range to be a truly big hitter in this regard. The beauty of TLAM is that you can move a ship to a region, and targets all over it become within reach within a few hours at minimal risk to the ship.
I think on the CAAM subject, "C1" will have i suspect a minimum of 32 silos for air defence missiles, and around 16 available for larger weapons, such as TLAM. Not that they will ever necesaraly be filled...
It certainly seems to be a very capable vessel, but it looks to be optimised as an Anti-air warfare Frigate. I thought the whole (or substantial reason) why the T-45 hull was not chosen was due to its accoustic properties to submarines? Would this ship not have a similar problem? (not that these could not be overcome).
Agree on the TacTom, for the same reasons as you. Having more than one capable platform assists flexibility to a large extent and allows you to use coercion, where a sub would cause fear/uncertaintly. Astute numbers form a whole new topic for discussion...
That said it seems to fit the bill on numerous levels. Would the flight deck of a C1 need to be of greater capacity?
I think the armament make up will depend how CAAM is deployed.? With Soft Launch it wont need a traditional VLS , possibly self contained clusters around the deck. However it might be more flexible if those Soft Launch Cannisters could be quad packed into the existing Sylver or US Vls cells. The blurb on Caam at least for the army version is 12 round packs (two per lorry) so when installed on the Type 23, they might just remove the existing Sea Wolf VLS, freeing up some weight?
The reason I would suggest that is because you then get more flexibility and future proofing. If we stick traditional VLS on the Type 26 we would have more flexibility. If the RN doesnt see Aster as a necessity on the Type 26 then I would think it would be an ideal opportunity to use the US system so we could get Tomahawk on them and future developments if we chose to.
If we added Sylver we would have the Option of puting more Aster 30 at sea (CEC from Type 45?), Scal naval(doubtfull) and other MBDA products such as Fire Shadow.
I would think 32 silos in total would do? 16 for Caam making 64 missiles and 16 for Land attack or combos thereof ? If Camm is to have its own separate launch system bolted around the deck or situated high up near the helo hanger, then you could have an even smaller VLS cluster (16) reducing the cost of the ships even further.
I am fairly sure i read that CAAM was going to be the air defence missile for T-26. Of course requirements can change. Not sure there is much point putting Aster 30 in any event - no suitable guidance unless with a T-45. Of course installing SYLVER 50/70 would allow then to be carried and used in this manner.
Agree on the nymber of silos - assuming CAAM (of whatever is fitted) can be quad packed. I believe that 16 Tac Tom capacity and 8 Harpoon represents a potent punch.
For my own benefit - what are "soft lanunch" canisters, and what is a Fire Shadow? Similar to Storm Shadow? Apologies for my ignorance!
There will be other interesting factors to T-26. Will it use IEP as on the QE and T-45? What size will it be, and what future proofing will it carry? I presume these ships will be designed with 30-40 year operational lives.
kev 99
Member
AFAIK - there is only one model of the C1 T26 design that has been released into the wild, it is a T45 hull (although possibly shortended), it may be the case that this is an early concept and won't make it but I strongly suspect T26 will have a T45 hull. Also the argument isn't so much that the hull isn't optimised for Anti submarine warfare more that the propulsion and machinery will require additional quieting measures.
Hot launch - basically the missile engine ignites in the vls
Soft launch - missile is ejected from the vls usually by gas, before engine ignition.
Fire Shadow is a loitering munition being developed by MBDA for the Royal Artillery, it only has a small warhead (40lb I think) but has a range of around 150 miles and can stay airborne for hours. There's info on the MBDA website about it as well as soft launch concept for CAAM.
You can also find lots of information about the Team Complex Weapons projects from this thread:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/future-british-tactical-missiles-8712/
Last edited:
If you google Camm there are a few schematics of the soft vertical launch, its basically a gas piston, the missile is stored and launched form a sealed container tube as a round of ammunition, the gas piston is at the bottom of the container tube fires it 80-100ft in the air and only then does the rocket fire, hence "soft launch", this has several advantages,
There are no rocket exhaust gases for the ship to deal with, no ducting to vent the blast, so no thermal effects, hence the cells can be positioned safely around the ship, it doesnt need a traditional VLS with all the plumbing for rocket exhaust, also as no rocket energy is needed to get it airborne all the motor energy is used for its flight, supposedly giving it a 20km range .
The land version will be based on a flat bed truck, the two packs of 12 missiles will be raised vertically when deployed, flat for transit. Theoreticaly you could bolt it around the decks of RFA's so long at they had a decent radar and uplink to ut the missile close enough to the target for the active seeker to find it.
Fire Shadow is an MBDA product, a loitering munition, propeller driven with a range of 80miles where it can loiter for upto 10 hours, where it then dives on the target for precision strike.Its only 12ft long , there are pics of it being tested in Wales , rocket boosted from a 45% ramp, so I think it could be ship launched for land attack if there was a need in future to support ground troops. (Imagine one of then during the retaking of South Georgia for instance, able to feed back footage of the defending troops? or flying over the West Side Boys in Sierra Leone...a good tool to have?)
Thanks. Fire shadow sounds interesting. Loitering Munition.... hmmm.
Thanks for the acoustic info - i agree that they will at the very least utilise lessons learnt from T-45, which by all accounts had outstanding sea trials.
I suspect the T-26 will be of similar size to T-45. Most naval vessels are moving toward 6,000t and beyond. Modifications will need to be made to flight deck i presume. The real question i suppose is numbers. The RN want 10 C1 and 8 C2. How likely is that.....
Thanks for the acoustic info - i agree that they will at the very least utilise lessons learnt from T-45, which by all accounts had outstanding sea trials.
I suspect the T-26 will be of similar size to T-45. Most naval vessels are moving toward 6,000t and beyond. Modifications will need to be made to flight deck i presume. The real question i suppose is numbers. The RN want 10 C1 and 8 C2. How likely is that.....
Thanks.
I think this supports the rational for having a large ship capable of deploying these weapons. Provision of this type of support to the troops will likely be vital in the RN's future.
If we are out of Afghanistan and dont get dragged into anything else then probably very likely to get those numbers, it would seem to be the minimum needed to keep ship building capacity. Especially if we dont seem try to do too much and make them too expensive.
If it is a Type 45 variant with quieter machinary you might look at
C1, 155mm gun, Room for 32 VLS forward , but built with 16 to save money for a small number of Tomahawk . Artisan Radar, 8 Harpoon, 48 Camm clustered around the helo hanger, the hanger and flight deck being as big as possible for 1/2 Merlin, Additional hull silencing and TAS.
C2 same as minus hull silencing, TAS,and Wildcat instead of Merlin, maybe the ablity to ramp launch Fire Shadow form the flight deck?
That wouldnt be too bad, seeing as the most potent air defence and deep strike capability will fly from the CV.
So is the F100. Both are derived from the same programme, the common frigate design for Germany, Spain & the Netherlands. Spain decided to go with AEGIS & SPY-1, which means that much more redesign would be needed to suit RN needs than the LFC or F124 would require.