The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

The Burkes are dual purpose, it doesn't follow it would be that much more expensive.

With Compromised ASW (some don't have TAS, some don't have embarked Helicopters and none have T23 style quiet engines). As for expense, they have double the crew of a T45.

The T26 will have quieter engines which will probably be cheaper than the WR21 and a TAS which might come from a T23 anyway?

Doubt the engines will be cheaper, due to inflation if nothing else. As for the TAS, the T23's which got 2087 are the newer ones that will leave service later, so not sure if the C1's will all get second hand 2087 or not.

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

TAS isnt the killer, CAMM and the associated electronics are the killer, both in space/weight terms and in cost.

 

[1805]

With Compromised ASW (some don't have TAS, some don't have embarked Helicopters and none have T23 style quiet engines). As for expense, they have double the crew of a T45.

You're probably right the crew will be higher but not double as some core ship roles will be shared.

Doubt the engines will be cheaper, due to inflation if nothing else. As for the TAS, the T23's which got 2087 are the newer ones that will leave service later, so not sure if the C1's will all get second hand 2087 or not.

The WR21 is very expensive pushing the boundries in many respects and is one of the additional factors that caused the cost of the T45 throught the roof.



TAS isnt the killer, CAMM and the associated electronics are the killer, both in space/weight terms and in cost.

I don't know but I would be surprised if CAMM is as space hungry as Sea Wolf was originally. but even the later VL version of Sea Wolf was much lighter and has been fitted on similar sized ships.

 

[StevoJH]

You're probably right the crew will be higher but not double as some core ship roles will be shared.

What I meant is, the Burke, has roughly double the crew of the T45. Harpoon should be a relatively straight forward addition to T45, as should ASW torpedo tubes. Personally, I think Torpedo tubes should be added, however I don't beleive Harpoon is required. Given T45 will be deployed as part of a carrier task force I don't see it getting close enough to an enemy surface vessel to utilise Harpoon in a hot warzone. Remember her helicopter will be equiped with Sea Skua 2 which given you need target information to send the harpoon to the right place anyway.....

The WR21 is very expensive pushing the boundries in many respects and is one of the additional factors that caused the cost of the T45 throught the roof.

Source please. The main factors that resulted in the high cost of T45 development were the PAAMS development costs (which were spread across 6 rather then 12 ships) and the cost of the 3 or 4 programs that were undertaken before T45 actually hit the water. :ar15

I don't know but I would be surprised if CAMM is as space hungry as Sea Wolf was originally. but even the later VL version of Sea Wolf was much lighter and has been fitted on similar sized ships.

Right.
1) Space footprint of the VLS cells
2) Additional weight and cost of a radar that is more capable and probably mounted higher then that would otherwise be fitted.
3) Additional crew spaces and storage space required to support additional crew.

What impact did the fitting on VL Sea Wolf have on the endurence and sea keeping ability of those ships though? You'll find most of them are Coastal Combatants rather then Blue Water combatants. Aka. Malacca Straight and Persian Gulf.

 

[1805]

What I meant is, the Burke, has roughly double the crew of the T45. Harpoon should be a relatively straight forward addition to T45, as should ASW torpedo tubes. Personally, I think Torpedo tubes should be added, however I don't beleive Harpoon is required. Given T45 will be deployed as part of a carrier task force I don't see it getting close enough to an enemy surface vessel to utilise Harpoon in a hot warzone. Remember her helicopter will be equiped with Sea Skua 2 which given you need target information to send the harpoon to the right place anyway.....

Agree on the harpoon and the same logic would probably apply to the 4.5" gun. The Burkes are a 20 year old design so crewing would be a bit heavier.


Source please. The main factors that resulted in the high cost of T45 development were the PAAMS development costs (which were spread across 6 rather then 12 ships) and the cost of the 3 or 4 programs that were undertaken before T45 actually hit the water. :ar15

I have it from a fairly senior ex RR person, the WR21 is also probably more expensive than the bigger trent based engines going in the CVF. The recuperating technology was ground breaking but expensive (although fuel efficient) and was planned for much longer production run in the DD(X) and 12 T45 and 2 CVF and then achieving wider market lead. This has sadly turned into 2 DD(X)? and 6 T45. There is little common parts just the design concept. I would not underestimate the other areas that have pushed the cost of the T45. These may have been desirable but not must haves.


Right.
1) Space footprint of the VLS cells
2) Additional weight and cost of a radar that is more capable and probably mounted higher then that would otherwise be fitted.
3) Additional crew spaces and storage space required to support additional crew.

What impact did the fitting on VL Sea Wolf have on the endurence and sea keeping ability of those ships though? You'll find most of them are Coastal Combatants rather then Blue Water combatants. Aka. Malacca Straight and Persian Gulf.

Not sure I'm buying your argument, in any case I am sure CAMM is going to be much lighter. It is designed to replace Rapier as well and so will have to be battlefield portable. I would have guessed it would be a similar footprint to RAM and that has been installed on 400t FAC.

 

[StevoJH]

Gah, i just wrote a massively long post and then hit the wrong button and deleted it all.

Long story short. If you stretch HMS Clyde to 100m. Thats a 22.7% increase, which if you give the same increase in displacement gives 2,270t. That doesnt count the weight of additional crew, equipment, fuel, armament (magazine for helicopter munitions, Mk.8 gun and magazine, VLS and missiles). By the time you add in all that stuff, it will be well over 2,500t and more heavily armed then a Leander or T21 class frigate.

Stats:
Flynx: 10.85m folded
Merlin: 15.85m folded
8 Cell VLS: (x)m footprint
4.5" gun: (x)m footprint

 

[1805]

Gah, i just wrote a massively long post and then hit the wrong button and deleted it all.

Long story short. If you stretch HMS Clyde to 100m. Thats a 22.7% increase, which if you give the same increase in displacement gives 2,270t. That doesnt count the weight of additional crew, equipment, fuel, armament (magazine for helicopter munitions, Mk.8 gun and magazine, VLS and missiles). By the time you add in all that stuff, it will be well over 2,500t and more heavily armed then a Leander or T21 class frigate.

Stats:
Flynx: 10.85m folded
Merlin: 15.85m folded
8 Cell VLS: (x)m footprint
4.5" gun: (x)m footprint

That is a pain when that happens! I see the issue, I had the helicopters on a T45/26 ship, RFA etc with a standard fit of 2 x Merlins. The small escort/LCS/Patrol ship would probably have a pad for a helicopter. No Mk 8 just 57mm/CAMM/Harpoon/AS TT and modules for AMOS twin 120mm mortars/minesweeping gear etc.

 

[StevoJH]

That is a pain when that happens! I see the issue, I had the helicopters on a T45/26 ship, RFA etc with a standard fit of 2 x Merlins. The small escort/LCS/Patrol ship would probably have a pad for a helicopter. No Mk 8 just 57mm/CAMM/Harpoon/AS TT and modules for AMOS twin 120mm mortars/minesweeping gear etc.

Why does it need CAMM and Harpoon though? I also don't see the point of fitting Mortar's? Its not a riverene patrol craft. And you have frigates and destroyers for NGFS.

 

[Hambo]

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

Annoy isnt the right word, its a combination of bore and amuse, with some head scratching doubts about your sanity.

Lets stick an AMOS mortar on ships for NGFS? A 12km range system with a supply train that we dont support. When we already have a perfectly good, cheap, supported gun that can lob a shell accurately over 25km.

If in your own words its doubtfull we could carry out NGFS against a tough opponent like Iran, why could an AMOS mortar achieve it with much reduced range?

But hold on, silly me, I forgot, You want something "like" and AMOS mortar, the version you will stick on our fleet of 30 2000 tonne ships will have a range of 700km and ability to lob 4 tonne shells?? Well thats me convinced. Can I remove the pencils from my nose now?

 

[1805]

Why does it need CAMM and Harpoon though? I also don't see the point of fitting Mortar's? Its not a riverene patrol craft. And you have frigates and destroyers for NGFS.

I would see such ships being primary warships and secondary partrol ships, probably the opposite of a C3. With a strong LCS role fairly fast (c30knot but not 40knots). Designed to address FAC etc but robust enough to be a convoy escort. A complement to powerful near cruiser type T45/T26s. Working in an LCS enviroment you would need strong anti missile/aircraft/helicopter defences that I think a CAMM/couple of 57mm guns could provide. They would need offensive weapons so Harpoon and the 57mm would provide this.

Shore bombardment is not such a priority because of the danger, but I think the use of AMOS solution if it can be added/removed as required would be a flexible option, swapping out one of the 57mm? AMOS looks intersting on the very small CB90, it is shorter range yes than a NGS, but we are risking a much smaller ship and prehaps beyond its range we should be using aircraft/missile?

In effect a longer range and more sea worthy ship but a similar concept to the K130 Braunschweig class.

 

[StevoJH]

I would see such ships being primary warships and secondary partrol ships, probably the opposite of a C3. With a strong LCS role fairly fast (c30knot but not 40knots). Designed to address FAC etc but robust enough to be a convoy escort. A complement to powerful near cruiser type T45/T26s. Working in an LCS enviroment you would need strong anti missile/aircraft/helicopter defences that I think a CAMM/couple of 57mm guns could provide. They would need offensive weapons so Harpoon and the 57mm would provide this.

Its the exact same role that the C1 will carry out. And as I've stated before, you can't fit that armament on that tonnage. The ship you describe, if you strip a few unneeded things off, is C3!!

Shore bombardment is not such a priority because of the danger, but I think the use of AMOS solution if it can be added/removed as required would be a flexible option, swapping out one of the 57mm? AMOS looks intersting on the very small CB90, it is shorter range yes than a NGS, but we are risking a much smaller ship and prehaps beyond its range we should be using aircraft/missile?

AMO's is fine on a CB90, but on a ship the size of the *C3*, you are better off fitting a 4.5" Mk.8 Mod.1.

In effect a longer range and more sea worthy ship but a similar concept to the K130 Braunschweig class.

Not much larger, and with CAMM more heavily armed. Remember CAMM requires a full VLS system be installed and is a larger missile with longer range then RAM fitted to K-130.

Plus the K130 is a baltic combatant with minimal endurence. Adding additional weapons to a ship just reduces seaworthyness and endurence.

In my opinion.

C3.
- ~2,500t
- 30mm or 57mm gun forward.
- Merlin sized flight deck with FLynx sized hanger and aircraft munitions magazine.
- Small flex deck aft of the flight deck for MCM modules.
- Length ~100m.

If air defense is required, give them a lockerfull of Starstreak missiles and launchers below decks in a small arms locker.

Adding much more then that unnecessarily adds cost and risk, while reducing sea keeping and endurence. And its capabilities they will never need, as they would go into a warzone along with a supporting carrier/amphibious group.

 

[swerve]

In my opinion.

C3.
- ~2,500t
- 30mm or 57mm gun forward.
- Merlin sized flight deck with FLynx sized hanger and aircraft munitions magazine.
- Small flex deck aft of the flight deck for MCM modules.
- Length ~100m.

If air defense is required, give them a lockerfull of Starstreak missiles and launchers below decks in a small arms locker.

Adding much more then that unnecessarily adds cost and risk, while reducing sea keeping and endurence. And its capabilities they will never need, as they would go into a warzone along with a supporting carrier/amphibious group.

57 mm preferably. I'd add mounting points for a couple of HMGs, to be kept in your locker along with some LMGs & your Starstreaks, & it'd be nice to have provision for a fixed Starstreak (Seastreak?) multiple launcher in case there's ever a scenario where it's worth fitting.

Other than that - yes. The helicopter & what it carries are the main weapons.

Sounds very much like BAM.

 

[vbombv]

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).

Is this one of them? Either way its a nice piece of kit:

Russian Navy Blog: And you thought coastal artillery went out with the Lindy Hop...

Specs:
A-222 130 mm arty / Bereg | Russian Arms, Military Technology, Analysis of Russia's Military Forces

 

[t68]

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.

Sorry to go off topic, but there is a great story about the HMS Amethyst in the current Navy association magazine out now.

With reference to the Yangtze River incident she was not expecting to be fired upon being seen as neutral, when she was shelled from land based artillery, she unfurled a large union jack on her side to no avail before she returned fire taking out a number of shore battery’s, when she ran aground and thus only able to return fire using her rear single turret til it was knock out. HMS Consort arrived and came under fire whilst displaying numerous white ensign flags and union jacks ,HMS Consort returned fire whilst also trying to get a tow rope onto HMS Amethyst to no avail and had to leave the scene other wise she to would have been lost.
She would eventually leave the area under her own steam after 130 odd day trapped when another commander covertly boarded the ship (the name escape’s myself at the moment) other wise all would have perished expecting a boarding which never came.

Just a foot note HMAS Shoalhaven was supposed to relive HMS Consort when the Australian government (Robert Menzies) refused permission to use Shoalhaven.

But things have to be put in prospective regarding to why she was put in that position in the first place, she believed that the UK being neutral would protect her from being drawn into a shooting match to witch she was not prepared and with no maneuver room when she came under fire, there is no way in hell would you be putting a ship in that situation if you new it was going into harms way with out escorts and prior navel gunfire support before going up river to knock out the shore battery’s. If you were sitting off the coast and receiving accurate retuning shore fire least you could move out further and bring in other assets to neutralize the shore battery’s.

 

[1805]

Sorry to go off topic, but there is a great story about the HMS Amethyst in the current Navy association magazine out now.

With reference to the Yangtze River incident she was not expecting to be fired upon being seen as neutral, when she was shelled from land based artillery, she unfurled a large union jack on her side to no avail before she returned fire taking out a number of shore battery’s, when she ran aground and thus only able to return fire using her rear single turret til it was knock out. HMS Consort arrived and came under fire whilst displaying numerous white ensign flags and union jacks ,HMS Consort returned fire whilst also trying to get a tow rope onto HMS Amethyst to no avail and had to leave the scene other wise she to would have been lost.
She would eventually leave the area under her own steam after 130 odd day trapped when another commander covertly boarded the ship (the name escape’s myself at the moment) other wise all would have perished expecting a boarding which never came.

Just a foot note HMAS Shoalhaven was supposed to relive HMS Consort when the Australian government (Robert Menzies) refused permission to use Shoalhaven.

But things have to be put in prospective regarding to why she was put in that position in the first place, she believed that the UK being neutral would protect her from being drawn into a shooting match to witch she was not prepared and with no maneuver room when she came under fire, there is no way in hell would you be putting a ship in that situation if you new it was going into harms way with out escorts and prior navel gunfire support before going up river to knock out the shore battery’s. If you were sitting off the coast and receiving accurate retuning shore fire least you could move out further and bring in other assets to neutralize the shore battery’s.

The officer was Lieutenant-Commander John Simon Kerans who was the local British Naval Attaché. Interestingly PLA artillery drove off a relief force of HMS London & HMS Black Swan with 105mm & 37mm guns despite London firing 132 8" and over 449 4" rounds!

 

[Systems Adict]

...But hold on, silly me, I forgot, You want something "like" and AMOS mortar, the version you will stick on our fleet of 30 2000 tonne ships will have a range of 700km and ability to lob 4 tonne shells?? Well thats me convinced.

Can I remove the pencils from my nose now?

Only if you take the underpants from your head & stop shouting 'Wibble' in an English Public school boy voice....

SA

 

[Systems Adict]

Gah, i just wrote a massively long post and then hit the wrong button and deleted it all.

Long story short. If you stretch HMS Clyde to 100m. Thats a 22.7% increase, which if you give the same increase in displacement gives 2,270t. That doesnt count the weight of additional crew, equipment, fuel, armament (magazine for helicopter munitions, Mk.8 gun and magazine, VLS and missiles). By the time you add in all that stuff, it will be well over 2,500t and more heavily armed then a Leander or T21 class frigate.

Stats:
Flynx: 10.85m folded
Merlin: 15.85m folded
8 Cell VLS: (x)m footprint
4.5" gun: (x)m footprint

Mmm...

Why HMS Clyde as the example ??

There are better out there....

Nakhoda Ragam Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology

Lekiu Class Frigates - Naval Technology

Gowind Class Corvette Multi-Mission Combatant - Naval Technology

MEKO A Class Corvettes / Frigates - Naval Technology

While I appreciate that she was built under "commercial design" conditions, the cost of adapting the design & bringing her up to an 'acceptable' standard for proper military conditions, would make it more worthwhile to design from scratch, rather than modify.

Your thoughts...

SA

 

[StevoJH]

Clyde was the first ships to come to mind. And for the point I was trying to make. ie. Displacement for a ship with 1805's specified armament and installed equipment, while retaining sufficient sea worthyness and endurence, it did the job.

From looking at those designs, they would all require similar levels of modification.

Starting from scratch would have to be the way to go, anything else and there will be compromises in one way or another.

 

[1805]

Mmm...

Why HMS Clyde as the example ??

There are better out there....

Nakhoda Ragam Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology

Lekiu Class Frigates - Naval Technology

Gowind Class Corvette Multi-Mission Combatant - Naval Technology

MEKO A Class Corvettes / Frigates - Naval Technology

While I appreciate that she was built under "commercial design" conditions, the cost of adapting the design & bringing her up to an 'acceptable' standard for proper military conditions, would make it more worthwhile to design from scratch, rather than modify.

Your thoughts...

SA

Yes I think they are all good examples of ships that I had in mind. If we were to build from scratch we could go for a far more radical stealth profile like the Visbys. My preference would be the 57mm over 76mm and I am assuming CAMM will be lighter than Sea Wolf. But at c 95m/ 5000 mile range more than adequate for a "global corvette", particularly as they would probably spend most of there time in the Med/Gulf. And they clearly demonstrate you can fit a very capable armament on quite a small ship. Mind the 40 year old A69 design carried a very heavy armament (if not very effective) on an even smaller displacement.

 

[citizen578]

Why the focus on CAMM's weight?

It would probably be highly similar to the ASRAAM's 88kg, which is heavier than Sea Wolf's 82kg.

The real importance is that CAMM will have roughly half the diameter (as per the ASRAAM airframe).

 

[1805]

Why the focus on CAMM's weight?

It would probably be highly similar to the ASRAAM's 88kg, which is heavier than Sea Wolf's 82kg.

The real importance is that CAMM will have roughly half the diameter (as per the ASRAAM airframe).

We were discussing the overall system size/weight because of the impact on small ships. Obviously I can't prove as its not complete, but I felt the overall system was likely to be lighter and probably no greater than the current Sea Wolf as it was also due to replace Rapier.