The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

It may very well be the case that the 127mm for the German Navy are part of an offset deal for the U212A. Nevertheless several other navys also field it.

A 127mm/64 LW comes in at 22 tons. How much does a 4.5 inch weight?

Slightly more, I think. 24 tons?

He probably meant the old 127/54, which I think may weigh about 37 tons.

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the info.
Looks like a good way to upgrade gun capabilities on UK ships to me.

But hey, I am German. What do I know about navy stuff...

How would modern guns with active homing seekers fare against the air defense of modern warships?

I expect a dozen intelligent rounds fired in quick succession from maybe 40km would be a problem for anything short of a air warfare destroyer/frigate? Would probably a more sensible approach to give the Darings an additional anti-ship capability than bolting some Harpoons onto them. (Yeah I know that it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges)

But maybe stuff like SRBOC could foil the rounds more easy as there can't be that much room for an advanced seeker in such a round.

 

[AndrewMI]

Thanks for the info.
Looks like a good way to upgrade gun capabilities on UK ships to me.

But hey, I am German. What do I know about navy stuff...

How would modern guns with active homing seekers fare against the air defense of modern warships?

I expect a dozen intelligent rounds fired in quick succession from maybe 40km would be a problem for anything short of a air warfare destroyer/frigate? Would probably a more sensible approach to give the Darings an additional anti-ship capability than bolting some Harpoons onto them. (Yeah I know that it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges)

But maybe stuff like SRBOC could foil the rounds more easy as there can't be that much room for an advanced seeker in such a round.

I guess that touches on an important point re air defence. CIWS, ASTER SM etc is aimed at destroying missiles as opposed to shells.

Would a Phalnx be able to shoot down a shall? Could Aster do that as well?

 

[Moebius]

One of the famous lessons from the Falklands was the mistake of relying on an ALL missile defence system, once bitten twice shy as they say. If anything I would like to see a mount which combines both gun and missile in a single unit (like the Russians), say Phalanx plus six Starstreak mounted port and starboard. I'm a big fan of the latter because of its hypersonic speed, range and ability to hit both surface and air targets using laser beam-riding technology - an ideal last-ditch defence system against UAV/Helo and small fast attack boats, to compliment CAAM. The Starstreak three dart system is a joy to watch in slow motion, each dart able to cause severe damage to a wide variety of targets.

I thought there would be remote controlled autocannons of some sort on the T26 (I must have misread something) something like the MLG 27 on the F125 from Germany. I thought I read that the T45s have a pair of 30mm guns (are they manned or are they remote controlled) and assumed they would also be on the T26.

In regards to Starstreak and the gun and missile combo, personally I have no problems against it, I was trying to keep costs under control by using a system that is or will be shortly in production and including the fact that it takes relatively little deck space.

 

[deepsixteen]

I'm aware if the plan, the debate is focused on the impact of budget deficit cuts and the unlikelihood of getting enough C1-C2 built. Also I'm saying I expect my low end to still be able to field Hi end ASW.

Re the 57mm, I don't rate 20mm Phalanx in the CIWS space anymore, I believe it will hit the missiles just at the range it will engage be unable to bring them down. Now I'm not an expert on this, I am just going on the trends navies have adopted over the last 30 years. However I accept the jury is out on CIWS. The RN never really seems to have been keen on Phalanax until now, only fitting when quite frankly nothing else would fit (T42s) and when it has space 30mm Goalkeeper, 35mm autocannon is being used by some European navies and Italy seemed to have dropped 40mm twins for 76mm. The real swing for me is the USN (money no object) installing 57mm on the DDG 1000, but then they still install Phalanx everywhere so must have confidence in it.

Also now it is BAe and has been adopted by USN, we have the chance to displace the Italians in the gun market (get on and build the 155mm and we will dominat it)

Glad the debate is moving forward and most seem to agree on the utility of a larger calibre gun, I do recognise that we are in difficult times but I do note that the government seems to think that its measures will deal with the structural deficit by the middle of this decade and as the Type 26 is not intended to begin manufacture, as far as I am aware, prior to then. I cannot see any need to make additional cuts to the spec of the vessel on that basis as the spec is not that good to start with if what we have seen so far is anywhere near correct.

I do think we should be seeking value for money and would have thought it prudent to build some (4) C2 spec ships first (governments do get the figures wrong) to replace the 22’s particularly as the 23’s are the last of the present generation warships to retire. I would see the C2 spec as pretty much identical to the C1 but fitted for and not with in some areas ie towed array as the 23’s are still around to cover that role. I also believe that C1/C2 should be built in batches of between four and six incorporating lesson’s/improvements over the years as the class is built and would not expect them to be more expensive than FREMM.

I suspect that the USN still fits Phalanax as it is a believer in layered defence and does not trust its missiles to be successful 100% of the time and one point on the Type 23 perhaps someone can refresh my memory (or lack thereof) but wasn’t the 23 supposed to get a CIWS as originally designed I seem to recall a model with goalkeeper port and stbd amidships?

 

[Moebius]

I guess that touches on an important point re air defence. CIWS, ASTER SM etc is aimed at destroying missiles as opposed to shells.

Would a Phalnx be able to shoot down a shall? Could Aster do that as well?

Phalanx in its Centurion C-RAM configuration is able to shoot down shells. I don't know if naval Phalanx requires anything to modify it other than some software updates and the purpose made ammo for C-RAM.

From the tests that I know about, Aster hasn't been tested against anything as small as an artillery round.

 

[deepsixteen]

I guess that touches on an important point re air defence. CIWS, ASTER SM etc is aimed at destroying missiles as opposed to shells.

Would a Phalnx be able to shoot down a shall? Could Aster do that as well?

CIWS have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan to shoot all kinds of rubbish down I understand.

 

[Waylander]

But can a CIWS with short range like Phalanx shoot down a dozen rounds which come down within 15 seconds? If no it would be interesting to know if the powerfull radar/missile combinations of modern AA ships can take out some rounds before the CWIS has to cope with them.

 

[citizen578]

Seawolf has a proven capability to down shells. Whether it can do this regardless of aspect/radar saturation/environmental conditions/etc I don't know.
It would be extremely disappointing if Sea Viper or CAMM were inferior in this regard.
The world of homing arty rounds certainly opens up a new can of worms for ship defence though.

 

[AndrewMI]

But can a CIWS with short range like Phalanx shoot down a dozen rounds which come down within 15 seconds? If no it would be interesting to know if the powerfull radar/missile combinations of modern AA ships can take out some rounds before the CWIS has to cope with them.

I guess it comes with the Layered defence principal?

It may well be that ships will need some more AAW in future to cope with ABM as well as guided shells. 64 CAAM cells may well be necessary on T-26 and the additional VLS on T-45 (which everyone expects to be retrofitted) may need to accomodate some more of these.

Would this meam more CIWS should be fitted? And what "soft kill" options for guided munitions are available?

 

[Moonstone]

Who has suggested another* £1 bn 7000 ton ship for the RN? The T26 is expected to be (1) a bit smaller than that, & (2) a lot, lot, cheaper than that.

Nor have I seen anyone suggest that such a ship, if bought, should be equipped with a gun similar to that found on 'nasty little speed boats'.

BTW, your feeble attempt at humour at the expense of the Spanish navy failed. Jokes like that have to have an element of truth to be funny.

*7000 tons, £1bn is T45.

Sorry to hear of your sense of humor failure , just trying to lighten the mood of forum that maybe takes itself a tad too seriously sometimes . Your confident prediction that the T26 will turn out as quote : "a lot, lot, cheaper" than the T45 has been noted for future reference .

As for the serious crime of daring to call a 6850 tonne (full load) design a '7000 tonne' ship I'm guilty as charged . I can only say how wonderful it is that moderators such as your good self are here to clamp down on such outrageous exaggerations in a not at all pernickety or anally retentive manner .

.

 

[Moonstone]

I hate to do this, but it was four frigates, plus four artillery batteries.

.

Yeah the Al Faw landings were just like Omaha Beach .

Read this :
The Battle for Al Faw

Didn't go too well did it ? Indeed was the whole amphibious operation at all necessary ?

If you want to use Al Faw as an example of why supporting amphibious assaults with NGS is an essential role for any modern navy you've chosen a pretty poor (but by no means untypical) example . Why don't you look for the last instance that any western navy engaged in a seriously opposed beach landing ? I'll give you a clue for starters - it was back in WWII and the operational code name is the same as a type of lettuce .

But hay , why not lumber all our ships with unnecessary heavy artillery just because other navy's might do so and we must do the same ? You never know it just might come in handy some time , some century or other , maybe .

 

[kev 99]

But hay , why not lumber all our ships with unnecessary heavy artillery just because other navy's might do so and we must do the same ? You never know it just might come in handy some time , some century or other , maybe .

The Royal navy has tried out 2 Frigate designs without a medium calibre gun and decided they don't want any more, I'd like to think they know what they're doing.

 

[Grim901]

Yeah the Al Faw landings were just like Omaha Beach .

Read this :
The Battle for Al Faw

Didn't go too well did it ? Indeed was the whole amphibious operation at all necessary ?

If you want to use Al Faw as an example of why supporting amphibious assaults with NGS is an essential role for any modern navy you've chosen a pretty poor (but by no means untypical) example . Why don't you look for the last instance that any western navy engaged in a seriously opposed beach landing ? I'll give you a clue for starters - it was back in WWII and the operational code name is the same as a type of lettuce .

But hay , why not lumber all our ships with unnecessary heavy artillery just because other navy's might do so and we must do the same ? You never know it just might come in handy some time , some century or other , maybe .

So now not only are you belittling the RN in its ability to decide what it wants, but also the entire military planning operation that decided that taking Al Faw by amphibious landing was necessary. Hell maybe we should all bend down and let you run the show.

And i'm sorry that the examples given weren't up to your high standards of what requires artillery support. I'll let the RM know that they should stop being pansys and get on with the job on their own next time. Actually perhaps you should, then we won't have to keep repeating ourselves whilst you ignore us and/or the facts.

 

[citizen578]

So it doesn't count, unless it's on the scale of WW2? Okaaay...

1805, I think you've found your soul-mate!

Anyway, here's some news:

New contracts for QE class lighting system

It seems the problem with Sea Viper/Aster has been solved, and Dauntless' trials of the system are back on track

 

[Hambo]

Yeah the Al Faw landings were just like Omaha Beach .

Read this :
The Battle for Al Faw

Didn't go too well did it ? Indeed was the whole amphibious operation at all necessary ?

If you want to use Al Faw as an example of why supporting amphibious assaults with NGS is an essential role for any modern navy you've chosen a pretty poor (but by no means untypical) example . Why don't you look for the last instance that any western navy engaged in a seriously opposed beach landing ? I'll give you a clue for starters - it was back in WWII and the operational code name is the same as a type of lettuce .

But hay , why not lumber all our ships with unnecessary heavy artillery just because other navy's might do so and we must do the same ? You never know it just might come in handy some time , some century or other , maybe .

Moonstone, why dont you pop down to Hamworthy, tell the chaps on the gate that Al Faw "Didn't go too well did it ?" They might agree with you or more likely direct you to Poole General.

 

[Moonstone]

So now not only are you belittling the RN in its ability to decide what it wants, but also the entire military planning operation that decided that taking Al Faw by amphibious landing was necessary. Hell maybe we should all bend down and let you run the show.

And i'm sorry that the examples given weren't up to your high standards of what requires artillery support. I'll let the RM know that they should stop being pansys and get on with the job on their own next time. Actually perhaps you should, then we won't have to keep repeating ourselves whilst you ignore us and/or the facts.

I do tend to ignore opinions - sorry 'facts' - that come without the slightest empirical evidence to support them or any indication of original thought . In your rush to 'play the man rather than the ball' you forgot to address any of the issues by the way , do you actually have an opinion on Al Faw ?

But no you're quite right , we should accept without question everything our betters do or tell us because " they always know best " and any recourse to an open & free debate about naval matters is entirely out of order on a forum such as this .

BTW living where I do I actually know several Royal Marines personally and I wouldn't 'belittle' this fine body of men at all . Believe me strolling into the Brewers Arms and calling any of them a 'Pansy' would be most ill advised .

 

[1805]

So it doesn't count, unless it's on the scale of WW2? Okaaay...

1805, I think you've found your soul-mate!

Anyway, here's some news:

New contracts for QE class lighting system

It seems the problem with Sea Viper/Aster has been solved, and Dauntless' trials of the system are back on track

Actually I have always said I support some NGS; during the Falklands some of the high initial Para casualties were caused by attacks on unprepared positions. In fact on a number of occasions post 45, the value of artillery has been neglected as part of, all arms operations, by a number of militaries.

I do think the 4.5” was a poor calibre for the Mk 8, once the RN moved away from medium calibre gunfire in the AA role. There was a 4” Vickers dual purpose option, I think the RN made the right call not going down the dual purpose route as France did.

The Italians have excellently taken both USN calibres and almost made them their own. I think the RN now has to get of the pot and make a decision on the 155mm, either they go for it or move to 127mm or radically even the ACS.

What I don’t agree with is installing NGS on every RN escort. If we end up with 18 escorts, 6-8 with guns must surely be sufficient to meet NGS requirement.

 

[1805]

The Royal navy has tried out 2 Frigate designs without a medium calibre gun and decided they don't want any more, I'd like to think they know what they're doing.

I don't think the lack of a 4.5" hindered the T22s role in the Falklands, there were plenty of other ships that could do the NGS support role. Even if you don't agree surely you would accept the T42 would certainly have benefit from a 76mm + Phalanx along with the reduction of top weight.

 

[1805]

Thanks for the info.
Looks like a good way to upgrade gun capabilities on UK ships to me.

But hey, I am German. What do I know about navy stuff...

How would modern guns with active homing seekers fare against the air defense of modern warships?

I expect a dozen intelligent rounds fired in quick succession from maybe 40km would be a problem for anything short of a air warfare destroyer/frigate? Would probably a more sensible approach to give the Darings an additional anti-ship capability than bolting some Harpoons onto them. (Yeah I know that it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges)

But maybe stuff like SRBOC could foil the rounds more easy as there can't be that much room for an advanced seeker in such a round.

I did understand the new version was lighter than the old Compact but 22t is impressive. Having looked it up online I see the Italian Army is funding development of 155mm versions of Vulcano. I think I would prefer the heavy round, maybe those nice Italians could see if the LW mount could be upgunned to 155mm.