The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[FluffyThoughts]

So am I.

Remember this is still only a concept picture, there is nothing to say at this point if the finished article will look anything like this, unless of course you count it being a sensible design based on an existing platform.

True, it is a concept. With sixteen full-length silos then one will assume that they will not be filled-to-the-brim with TacToms. Could GMLRS or Fireshadow fill in eight or twelve? The separate CAAM silos have also been seen before - Venator - so the concept is not too far-fetched.

As it is we will have to wait four-years for the definitive design. Whether sixteen or thirty-two full-length silos is unknown, so we should not get too concerned at this stage. That said, extending the silo to fit an the extra slots [to 32] would imply a longer hull (as it is currently envisaged). Would this would put the T-26 edging back into T-45 class dimensions.

 

[kev 99]

True, it is a concept. With sixteen full-length silos then one will assume that they will not be filled-to-the-brim with TacToms. Could GMLRS or Fireshadow fill in eight or twelve? The separate CAAM silos have also been seen before - Venator - so the concept is not too far-fetched.

As it is we will have to wait four-years for the definitive design. Whether sixteen or thirty-two full-length silos is unknown, so we should not get too concerned at this stage. That said, extending the silo to fit an the extra slots [to 32] would imply a longer hull (as it is currently envisaged). Would this would put the T-26 edging back into T-45 class dimensions.

We don't know that it will have any vls of "full length" yet, it might just have CAAM, all we do know is that the RN would like it to.

 

[Systems Adict]

I agree that it looks good, is that a 127mm? It does apear to be only 16 VLS tubes and I still think a full size hanger would he best. I think that if it costs more than a FREMM the RN would be better with them as they at least have 32 VLS I am surprised that they didn't just copy the VLS section from the type 45..

Let me do my ever faithfull & state the obvious....

As others have commented, no arguement, this CONCEPT / MODEL has 16 VLS tubes. Following back to the source article & pictures, it also states it THINKS it's a 127mm, has both active (flares & chaff (DLH)) decoys & passive decoys (DLF / Rubber Duck), x2 30mm guns, a twin headed EOGCS (Electro-Optical Gun Control System), x8 Harpoon (x2 quad launchers), the ARTISAN 3D radar, as well as x2 sets of CAMM launchers & x2 CIWS (x1 fwd & x1 aft).

Personally, I think that the gun at the front is either the 5" update to the MOD1, or the US 5" / AGS. Either way, from what's been intimated in the past couple of years, the RN want something Bigger than the 114mm / 4.5" gun that's currently used throughout the fleet.

While it's obvious that 127 is bigger than 114mm, to maintain 'commonality' of ammunition, the UK Govt / RN will want to go down the 5 inch route, to 'share' with the Army.

Anyways, that's my tuppence worth.

SA

 

[1805]

Let me do my ever faithfull & state the obvious....

As others have commented, no arguement, this CONCEPT / MODEL has 16 VLS tubes. Following back to the source article & pictures, it also states it THINKS it's a 127mm, has both active (flares & chaff (DLH)) decoys & passive decoys (DLF / Rubber Duck), x2 30mm guns, a twin headed EOGCS (Electro-Optical Gun Control System), x8 Harpoon (x2 quad launchers), the ARTISAN 3D radar, as well as x2 sets of CAMM launchers & x2 CIWS (x1 fwd & x1 aft).

Personally, I think that the gun at the front is either the 5" update to the MOD1, or the US 5" / AGS. Either way, from what's been intimated in the past couple of years, the RN want something Bigger than the 114mm / 4.5" gun that's currently used throughout the fleet.

While it's obvious that 127 is bigger than 114mm, to maintain 'commonality' of ammunition, the UK Govt / RN will want to go down the 5 inch route, to 'share' with the Army.

Anyways, that's my tuppence worth.

SA

Do you mean by 5" the 155mm (actually 6.1")? The ACS is a different 155mm which does not share common NATO ammo. (127mm is a 5")

 

[Systems Adict]

Do you mean by 5" the 155mm (actually 6.1")? The ACS is a different 155mm which does not share common NATO ammo. (127mm is a 5")

Doh !

Meant 155mm

...only feeble excuse for my 'error' is I NEED SLEEP !

:sleepy3

SA

 

[Grim901]

Just found this resource at Secret Projects. If you click upon the top image - and can decipher the Spanish - it would appear that there are separate CAMM silos. [I think Grim has hinted at this before, but maybe that was somewhere else...?] So it's full-length silos * 16 plus ~48 CAMM, which I'm happy about.

When did I hint at that? (Don't remember but I may well have done).

And looking at that image you posted I certainly be happy to get that ship, i'd never seen that view before, very promising with the 48 CAMM cells in 2 locations AND 16 presumably full VLS. I wasn't expecting such a comprehensive load out or so many CAMMs or even that the CAMMS would be in dedicated separate cells.

The gun is somewhat confusing though, it does resemble that AGS, but I cant see the Rn adapting that for this class.

 

[AndrewMI]

It certainly seems to be a very capable ship in that format. The 16 large VLS at the front is perhaps a little small, although with a capable 155mm gun this is minimised. The beauty of CAAMM is that you could easily strap on another 24 silos to the ship without too much difficulty.

Hopefully, they will get built in the required numbers... i.e. 12!

 

[kev 99]

How sure are you all about the 48 cell CAAM launchers? I can't see anything on the better resolution BAE pictures that categorically point to this, just a couple of things that may be vls or even something else altogether, it just sounds like more speculation.

 

[AndrewMI]

How sure are you all about the 48 cell CAAM launchers? I can't see anything on the better resolution BAE pictures that categorically point to this, just a couple of things that may be vls or even something else altogether, it just sounds like more speculation.

It may well be - i guess it depends on the make-up of the CAAMM system. It could be 2 sets of 24, or one set of 32 or two sets of 32 - there is no way of telling!

I don't think 48 or 64 CAAMM silos is an unreasonable number TBH.

 

[StevoJH]

I don't think 48 or 64 CAAMM silos is an unreasonable number TBH.

Its a very expensive number if they happen to be quad packed.

 

[harryriedl]

Its a very expensive number if they happen to be quad packed.

its always nice to have the space though,

 

[AndrewMI]

Its a very expensive number if they happen to be quad packed.

I don't think they are quad packed.

As i understand it the current intention is for them to be in a seperate specific launcher on T26 where they can easily be fitted in packs of 4/8/12 or whatever. They are cold launched.

I do believe that they are to be fitted to the T-45 and take over from Aster 15. If they go in the SYLVER launcher i guess they would be quad packed, otherwise i imagine they will fit the CAAM launcher in the gaps between the SYLVER launchers.

In total, 64 CAAM would be a reasonable number IMO.

 

[deepsixteen]

When did I hint at that? (Don't remember but I may well have done).

The gun is somewhat confusing though, it does resemble that AGS, but I cant see the Rn adapting that for this class.

Looking at it I thought it was the Italian 127mm gun? I still think it needs some more VLS tubes even if it has seperate CAAM launchers.

Hauge has just been on the news talking about one of his main prioities for the FO to be making sales for UK PLC I suspect the the Type 26 may be pretty salable what do othe rmembers think is there any mileage in sales to Canada/Australia?

 

[Grim901]

Looking at it I thought it was the Italian 127mm gun? I still think it needs some more VLS tubes even if it has seperate CAAM launchers.

Hauge has just been on the news talking about one of his main prioities for the FO to be making sales for UK PLC I suspect the the Type 26 may be pretty salable what do othe rmembers think is there any mileage in sales to Canada/Australia?

It was the mount that made me suggest the AGS.

It does have export potential. But only if the equipment fit can be modified as necessary between nations or if the equipment we put on is actually the international norm, such as a 127mm gun.

 

[harryriedl]

It was the mount that made me suggest the AGS.

It does have export potential. But only if the equipment fit can be modified as necessary between nations or if the equipment we put on is actually the international norm, such as a 127mm gun.

That should be too difficult especially as modularity and COTS is going to be part of the program shouldn't be too difficult to for CAN and AUS to fit US kit if they desire(If the US allows it).

It is the norm for British ships to be fitted with non UK kit as im sure a few have MICA rather than a UK system for exports

 

[riksavage]

That should be too difficult especially as modularity and COTS is going to be part of the program shouldn't be too difficult to for CAN and AUS to fit US kit if they desire(If the US allows it).

It is the norm for British ships to be fitted with non UK kit as im sure a few have MICA rather than a UK system for exports

The UK and French Governments are currently conducting parallel assessments in line with their own respective SDR's to look at sharing future programmes without compromising operational flexibility (able to go it alone). Top of the list is the future tanker programme, UK/France sharing an Airbus derived fleet (the current planned UK one). Other areas no doubt will be maritime commonality - CAMM clearly being one and possible future maritime UAV/UCAV. See link:

U.K., France To Launch 'Ambitious' Cooperation Study - Defense News

With the UK and French fleets being operationally similar (SSN, SSBN, Carrier capable) there has to be possibilities to reduce cost and share technology or supporting assets (Naval tanker fleets for example).

A marinised version of the new 40mm land system would be an interesting development, the space saving rounds with the hitting power of a 50mm+ plus system would be ideal as alternative to the 25/30mm systems fitted most surface ships.

 

[vbombv]

More gloom and doom in the press today :

Control of Royal Marines could be handed to the Army instead of Navy

If there is any truth to this it would seem that the Government really are trying to bring the UK down to size!

 

[riksavage]

More gloom and doom in the press today :

Control of Royal Marines could be handed to the Army instead of Navy

If there is any truth to this it would seem that the Government really are trying to bring the UK down to size!

When you consider the original Commando's were army units and most of the support (artillery, amroured recce, engineering) are all drawn from army units then what's the big deal. As long as they retain the All Arms Commando Course who cares. If this saves on bureaucracy and unnecessary duplication, allowing money to be spent on front line equipment then crack-on.

The UK could more closely align it's SF community, as follows:

Tier One: SBS/SAS - recruits drawn from all branches of the military

Tier Two: 1 SFSG (1 para + RAF Reg Sqn), 2 SFSG (40 Army Commando + RAF Reg Sqn), 1 x Special Reconnaissance Regiment.

Tier Three: Land (2 & 3 Para), Maritime (42 & 45 Army Commando)

All placed under a single unified SF Command. let's stop being nostalgic and look at the need to standardise command, control and equipment across the primary land/sea fighting units. I would rather see this approach than watch the Navy cut a Commando to buy a few more hulls.

Historically marines where there to fight in the rigging tops and to stop boarding parties, later they would man the X or Y turret, provide raiding parties etc. In todays context they are amphib infantry, more likely to be seen fighting on land than at sea ship to ship. In the UK context more than likely under an Army General.

The issue here is one of budgets, the Navy needs cash to buy big ticket items (Carrier strike, SSBN, SSN, F35B's), taking out the Commando brigade and moving it under the army budget frees up cash.

To quote Army General Sir David Richards, the next Chief of the Defence Staff: “You need green and brown water fleets ... that allow you to reach into ungoverned space and make your presence felt.” He appeciates the importance of maitaining a maritime amphib fighting capability and I belive he has a much better 'grip' of what the RM Commando's can do than your average Admiral.

 

[swerve]

More gloom and doom in the press today :

Control of Royal Marines could be handed to the Army instead of Navy

If there is any truth to this it would seem that the Government really are trying to bring the UK down to size!

There is a lot of misunderstanding of the process. The government has demanded that departments, including the MoD, come up with options for cuts. If you put together all the options, it would seem that we're about to cut the armed forces down to a coastguard & militia, but that is not what is actually happening. Most of the options are alternatives, i.e. either A or B, not A and B. Also, many of these options are being put forward as a series of cuts of varying severity, & the press is reporting only the most extreme version.

One much misunderstood example is the proposal that the RAF Nimrod MRA4 fleet not be put into service. The RAF has put this forward, knowing that the RN will oppose it. It's pure politics: the RAF forces the RN to oppose a cut to the RAF.

Look very, very carefully at all these reports, thinking about them in view of the example above.

 

[vbombv]

So really we are not looking at capability cuts, just administrative. Good to be placed in perspective.

Reading the current press reports it would seem that we are not going to have armed forces left after much longer... I guess that being alarmist sells papers.