The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

^What he said, the last thing the RN needs are monitors like the USN is building, erm, I mean a Zumwalts:

 

[AndrewMI]

Apologies - i was under the impression the AGS could fire standard ammo as well.... the 155 the RN propose - fires guided munitions too i presume?

 

[kato]

The AGS fires insane 100 lb missiles that - effectively - are pretty comparable to NETFIRES. The mount also pretty much weighs twice what a complete AS90 would weigh.

As for guided projectiles from AS90, iirc Excalibur was tested from it about a year ago or so.

 

[citizen578]

A ship whos gun can't outrange the defender will not be able to conduct shore bombardment against an enemy that got decent artillery and sensors. For one thing the (mid-air) shells will give away the position of the ship, making it a sitting, very expensive, target for counter-artillery.

Generally a minehunter should be a drone, a remote controlled robot. Completely brainless to send in a manned expensive ship against a mine, that a cabable and thinking enemy would have made very smart.

With a little knowledge about the 80'ties vintage mines deployed by the danish navy to block the danish straights, some of these mines could differentiate between ship classes, allow a programmable number of pases, or simply were remote controlled. These mines were burried on the bottom, made of materials hard to detect etc. A minesweeper could sweep for days without end - never knowing whether it got all the mines or not.
With todays tech and advances in AI? It's not going to be easy, it's going to be very dangerous to sweep'em all.

Further more I also have troubles with understanding the idea behind the ASW frigate. There is just something that doesn't rhyme,
Here you have a sub that holds an intrinsic stealth advantage, if the surface ship get's within weapons range, it's definately not the hunter - it's the hunted. So to avoid this, it uses it's helicopters (to my understanding). And it follows that the ship with best and most helicopters is the more cabable ASW ship, I should think.

Errr whaaa?

There's few land based systems in current or near use which could outgun a 4.5, let alone 155mm gun (as we were originally talking about the future). Fewer units still which have a C-RAM unit attached which would stand a snowballs chance in hell of pinpointing the position of a warship firing e-r or even standard shells over the horizon.
Then what? They're got to return fire (whilst under fire), and magically hit a moving target. Good luck.

Why are you now speculating about the efficiency of detecting mines? It bears no relevance.
Minehunters have been using ''drones'' for a long time. Perhaps you missed seeing the news about the RN's recent addition for drivelling on about european economic policy or how the absolon will sail to the moon one day.

If you don't understand the role of an ASW frigate, then by all means google it, or set up as a writer for The Register.

 

[kato]

Operation Southern Flank in 1990 (WEU operation) proved that current minehunting technology is good enough against modern mines, clearing over 1200 mines from dozens of fields within 3 months.

 

[OPSSG]

There's few land based systems in current or near use which could outgun a 4.5, let alone 155mm gun (as we were originally talking about the future)....

There are countries with this capability (I can think of at least 2). Many just don't directly admit that they have such tracking and fire capabilities and some have the hardware to track but I'm not sure about their level of integration at the back end. Sorry about being cryptic and the lack of a link, but this is not a disclosed capability.

 

[Grim901]

A ship whos gun can't outrange the defender will not be able to conduct shore bombardment against an enemy that got decent artillery and sensors. For one thing the (mid-air) shells will give away the position of the ship, making it a sitting, very expensive, target for counter-artillery.

Generally a minehunter should be a drone, a remote controlled robot. Completely brainless to send in a manned expensive ship against a mine, that a cabable and thinking enemy would have made very smart.

With a little knowledge about the 80'ties vintage mines deployed by the danish navy to block the danish straights, some of these mines could differentiate between ship classes, allow a programmable number of pases, or simply were remote controlled. These mines were burried on the bottom, made of materials hard to detect etc. A minesweeper could sweep for days without end - never knowing whether it got all the mines or not.
With todays tech and advances in AI? It's not going to be easy, it's going to be very dangerous to sweep'em all.

Further more I also have troubles with understanding the idea behind the ASW frigate. There is just something that doesn't rhyme,
Here you have a sub that holds an intrinsic stealth advantage, if the surface ship get's within weapons range, it's definately not the hunter - it's the hunted. So to avoid this, it uses it's helicopters (to my understanding). And it follows that the ship with best and most helicopters is the more cabable ASW ship, I should think.

Refer to what citizen said below for part of what I was going to say.

And as mentioned the RN does uses UUVs for minehunting, but what does that have to do with the current discussion?

Hey, now that's an idea, the RN has a standing requirement for 2 ships for the LPH role, how about we just build 16 * son of Ocean through deck cruisers instead, we could even use them to mothership CB90s off davits, I doubt the price would be much different to that of other proposed C2s (not including airwing) and they'd be much more useful.

Of course, I'm kidding, but it would make for a crazy looking task force.

The bold bit really hits it on the head. People like to talk about this concept as if they can somehow write off or ignore the cost of all these ASW helos. They're a massive proportion of the cost (reminds me of CVF) so to simply point at the hull itself and scream "CHEAPER CHEAPER" doesn't work. Nor does ignoring the uses of TAS.

Indirectly I guess you would end up with an Absalon 2 x Merlins better than a T26? Cheap helicopter capable ships with lots of smaller ships to drag TAS The original concept behind the T23. Do we really need a 7000t ASW could we not get away with a Loch sized ship (it was the best ASW frigate of WW2!) . How big does a ship have to be to operate effectively a TAS?

I'd point out that TAS does things a helo can't and that by putting it on smaller ships you limit where it can operate. Keep in mind the RN needs to operate is TAS in some of the most inhospitable seas in the world.

i understand that trails using the same gun as challenger has been undertaken as well as the the gun on the AS90, for the navy is this true!!!

BAE was/is working on a 155mm gun base don the AS90 main gun. Never heard anything a challenger main gun being used though.

Errr whaaa?

There's few land based systems in current or near use which could outgun a 4.5, let alone 155mm gun (as we were originally talking about the future). Fewer units still which have a C-RAM unit attached which would stand a snowballs chance in hell of pinpointing the position of a warship firing e-r or even standard shells over the horizon.
Then what? They're got to return fire (whilst under fire), and magically hit a moving target. Good luck.

Why are you now speculating about the efficiency of detecting mines? It bears no relevance.
Minehunters have been using ''drones'' for a long time. Perhaps you missed seeing the news about the RN's recent addition for drivelling on about european economic policy or how the absolon will sail to the moon one day.

If you don't understand the role of an ASW frigate, then by all means google it, or set up as a writer for The Register.

Thank you.

 

[1805]

Errr whaaa?

There's few land based systems in current or near use which could outgun a 4.5, let alone 155mm gun (as we were originally talking about the future). Fewer units still which have a C-RAM unit attached which would stand a snowballs chance in hell of pinpointing the position of a warship firing e-r or even standard shells over the horizon.
Then what? They're got to return fire (whilst under fire), and magically hit a moving target. Good luck.

Why are you now speculating about the efficiency of detecting mines? It bears no relevance.
Minehunters have been using ''drones'' for a long time. Perhaps you missed seeing the news about the RN's recent addition for drivelling on about european economic policy or how the absolon will sail to the moon one day.

If you don't understand the role of an ASW frigate, then by all means google it, or set up as a writer for The Register.

I would have thought quite a few land based weapons could out range a 4.5". Old 130mm and up in both hitting power. But the real issue is anti ship missiles like C802 which Iran has. I am not sure how much range is an issue is confined areas like the Gulf. Against determine defended shore positions I don't think it is as clear cut as you make out that ships would dominate, unless they can guarantee 100% air domination and supression. In which case you might as well us them to drop guided munitions.

Even if you go back a long way to HMS Amethyst, both Amethyst and much larger ships were driven off by just shore based artillery. A warship is very exposed and vunerable to fire, compared to entrenched or mobile guns/missiles.

 

[1805]

I'd point out that TAS does things a helo can't and that by putting it on smaller ships you limit where it can operate. Keep in mind the RN needs to operate is TAS in some of the most inhospitable seas in the world.




Thank you.[/QUOTE]

Thats why I said supported by ships dragging TAS. I don't think a ship needs to be 7000t to drag a TAS. The Lochs were designed to operate in just that inhospitable enviroment, I don't know if a modern ship of similar size could take and process TAS, but ships not much bigger could. As I understand you have to use TAS a very slow speed to be effective.

 

[AndrewMI]

The question to me seems to be do you:

1 - want specialised escorts for certain tasks (i.e. T45 = air defence, T26 = anti-sub, T27 = land attack etc.) or

2 - want multi role escorts (not jack of all trades) but say, there are 7 requirements for escorts, those being air defence, land attack, anti-submarine, anti-shipping, anti-ballistic missile, minesweeping and special forces, you would want each ship to be capable of performing 2/3 of those at the highest level.

The problem seems to be that as T-45 only performs one, the T-26 and possible other variant need to be able to perform a wide range of tasks.

 

[1805]

The question to me seems to be do you:

1 - want specialised escorts for certain tasks (i.e. T45 = air defence, T26 = anti-sub, T27 = land attack etc.) or

2 - want multi role escorts (not jack of all trades) but say, there are 7 requirements for escorts, those being air defence, land attack, anti-submarine, anti-shipping, anti-ballistic missile, minesweeping and special forces, you would want each ship to be capable of performing 2/3 of those at the highest level.

The problem seems to be that as T-45 only performs one, the T-26 and possible other variant need to be able to perform a wide range of tasks.

I think the T45 will develop over the years, but I am very surpised is is not planned to be a top tier ASW platform. I would like to see more warlike ships at the 1,500-2,500t space armed with 57mm/CAMM,Harpoon, ASW TT that can drag a TAS if needed but can also do patrol work. Ships that can built in larger numbers fully modular able maybe able to take the AMOS twin mortar system/Minesweeking gear etc

 

[StevoJH]

I think the T45 will develop over the years, but I am very surpised is is not planned to be a top tier ASW platform.

Better to do one job really well then to do two jobs badly and at higher cost.

I would like to see more warlike ships at the 1,500-2,500t space armed with 57mm/CAMM,Harpoon, ASW TT that can drag a TAS if needed but can also do patrol work. Ships that can built in larger numbers fully modular able maybe able to take the AMOS twin mortar system/Minesweeking gear etc

You wont fit all that stuff on 1,200-2,500t, but you could possibly fit a TAS to C3 with an ASW helicopter and Aviation weapons storage. Sea Skua 2 for AShW.

 

[1805]

Better to do one job really well then to do two jobs badly and at higher cost.



You wont fit all that stuff on 1,200-2,500t, but you could possibly fit a TAS to C3 with an ASW helicopter and Aviation weapons storage. Sea Skua 2 for AShW.

The Burkes are dual purpose, it doesn't follow it would be that much more expensive. The T26 will have quieter engines which will probably be cheaper than the WR21 and a TAS which might come from a T23 anyway?

As for a 1500-2500t ship having a 57mm/CAMM/Harpoon & AS TT thats a light weapons fit. I don't know the impact of TAS but it can't be to add another 1,000t. Its a similar outfit to the Abukuma at 2,550t

 

[AndrewMI]

Better to do one job really well then to do two jobs badly and at higher cost.

Agree with the sentiment, however it is possible for ships to do certain combinations of tasks well and not to the detriment of the other.

The T-45 will grow into new roles during re-fits. The only disappointing thing is their lack of number.

We know they have space for more Aster missiles, TacTom, Harpoon and that there is an intention to give PAAMS an ABM capability.

 

[Hambo]

The Burkes are dual purpose, it doesn't follow it would be that much more expensive. The T26 will have quieter engines which will probably be cheaper than the WR21 and a TAS which might come from a T23 anyway?

As for a 1500-2500t ship having a 57mm/CAMM/Harpoon & AS TT thats a light weapons fit. I don't know the impact of TAS but it can't be to add another 1,000t. Its a similar outfit to the Abukuma at 2,550t

...and around and around 1805 goes with the same old same old. The small ship class name changes, the "like" the "insert small ship class" with "insert weapon system"

Back with the "Burkes are dual role" , "Irans coast dotted with C802", "the 57mm" wonder weapon etc etc.

Cant wait for next months installment, the 2500 ship with, TAS, smething "like a kashtan" "Like the ???? class"

 

[citizen578]

I would have thought quite a few land based weapons could out range a 4.5". Old 130mm and up in both hitting power. But the real issue is anti ship missiles like C802 which Iran has. I am not sure how much range is an issue is confined areas like the Gulf. Against determine defended shore positions I don't think it is as clear cut as you make out that ships would dominate, unless they can guarantee 100% air domination and supression. In which case you might as well us them to drop guided munitions.

I said outgun, not outrange. Even so, what realistic situation would entail a ~battery of field artillery positioning themselves, with appropriate c-ram, with a mathematical genius in tow.... to engage ships engaging in NGS?
Yes - I can think of field artillery which, on a range, under test conditions, could match or exceed the gunnery of a single 4.5in gun.
No - I struggle to think of a battlefield situation which might realistically involve field artillery returning effective fire to a warship.

Why might we as well use air power? By the same principle, you could do away with naval force, period. The fact is that there are occasions when naval artillery represents a better solution to simply throwing an LGB at everything, not to mention a damn sight cheaper.

Even if you go back a long way to HMS Amethyst, both Amethyst and much larger ships were driven off by just shore based artillery. A warship is very exposed and vunerable to fire, compared to entrenched or mobile guns/missiles.

Why? Which Amethyst... she of the Yangtse, or are we going all the way back to the 18th century?

Either way, we were discussing modern and near-future systems, not historical incidents of shore-batteries and warships exchanging fire, of which there are thousands. The entire point of mounting a sizable gun on a ship with impressive organic defence, or as part of a battlegroup, is that you do not expose youself to such dangers.

 

[1805]

...and around and around 1805 goes with the same old same old. The small ship class name changes, the "like" the "insert small ship class" with "insert weapon system"

Back with the "Burkes are dual role" , "Irans coast dotted with C802", "the 57mm" wonder weapon etc etc.

Cant wait for next months installment, the 2500 ship with, TAS, smething "like a kashtan" "Like the ???? class"

You don't have to read them if they annoy you!

 

[1805]

I said outgun, not outrange. Even so, what realistic situation would entail a ~battery of field artillery positioning themselves, with appropriate c-ram, with a mathematical genius in tow.... to engage ships engaging in NGS?
Yes - I can think of field artillery which, on a range, under test conditions, could match or exceed the gunnery of a single 4.5in gun.
No - I struggle to think of a battlefield situation which might realistically involve field artillery returning effective fire to a warship.

Why might we as well use air power? By the same principle, you could do away with naval force, period. The fact is that there are occasions when naval artillery represents a better solution to simply throwing an LGB at everything, not to mention a damn sight cheaper.

I do see the value of NGS but not on every ship as the RN insists on doing. I think against lightly defended coastlines it is useful. My point about about air power was if you can only safely shore bombard with using air strikes to supress defences you might aswell just use the air power to do the bombardment.

And yes I do think aircraft and aircraft carriers are still the principle weapons of power projection. Getting them back is vital.


Why? Which Amethyst... she of the Yangtse, or are we going all the way back to the 18th century?

Either way, we were discussing modern and near-future systems, not historical incidents of shore-batteries and warships exchanging fire, of which there are thousands. The entire point of mounting a sizable gun on a ship with impressive organic defence, or as part of a battlegroup, is that you do not expose youself to such dangers.

Well it was the Yangtse one. Either way I think the balance of firepower has moved even more since then in the favour of the shore defences (well missile ones) since 1949. You point about impressive organic defence is right so yes maybe leave this to the T45. But will the T26?

Where might this happen you asked the straights of Hormuz?

 

[citizen578]

Well it was the Yangtse one. Either way I think the balance of firepower has moved even more since then in the favour of the shore defences (well missile ones) since 1949. You point about impressive organic defence is right so yes maybe leave this to the T45. But will the T26?

Where might this happen you asked the straights of Hormuz?

Really? You think a sloop with a few anti-aircraft pompoms, in a special mission in an enclosed riverine environment is less at risk than a modern warship. Wow.

There are few (if any) cases when a country can provide complete coastal coverage with land-based AShM's, less still in a modern war scenario.

You'd rather send a 45 in for shore bombardment than a 26? Wow again.

 

[1805]

Really? You think a sloop with a few anti-aircraft pompoms, in a special mission in an enclosed riverine environment is less at risk than a modern warship. Wow.

There are few (if any) cases when a country can provide complete coastal coverage with land-based AShM's, less still in a modern war scenario.

You'd rather send a 45 in for shore bombardment than a 26? Wow again.

Well she did have 6x4" guns and I also referred to the destroyer and county class cruiser? driven back by artillery. The point really is you can near miss a shore system. you near miss a 4.5" and you might hit the rest of the ship. They are much easier target.

Agreed re complete coverage, but Iran doesn't need to cover all areas she just has to close the narrow straights. She can sow mines and then protect the mines with missiles and maybe artillery. If anything does happen with Iran, it would be a Sea Wolf armed T23 or T45. I don't like either idea. I was the one questioning the value of 4.5" on every escorts