The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

Interesting article articulating the huge leap of Watchkeeper over the current Hermes 450. I assumed they were basically the same all but in name - clearly not the case.

Articles

The system should be operational this year, and several comments caused me to question whether they could be deployed from a QE class. Advantages as follows:

Comes with first in class fully automated landing and take-off system using radar guidance,

Two controllers can fly three Watchkeepers simultaneously

Information can be simultaneously downloaded in real time to a myriad of users (ship and shore deployed assets)

All weather ability

Small footprint of GCS.

...If u kn rd this then u'll undrstnd this....


BTW, WTF's GCS ??





I LOVE Acronyms’ (If I didn't know or use them every day, I'd be lost @ work !!), but if you going to use them can we please use the common courtesy of ....

...either 'spelling it out in full', & putting the T or FLA in brackets...

or

Using the T or FLA & (putting the full descriptor in brackets afterwards).


Thank you for your co-operation !


SA




PS T or FLA = THREE or FOUR LETTER ACROYNM

 

[JoeMcFriday]

GCS= most often means Ground Control Station when referring to UAVs etc.

Forgive the one line answer but such a simple question cannot be explained more fully without difficulty,

Cheers,
Mac

 

[riksavage]

...If u kn rd this then u'll undrstnd this....


BTW, WTF's GCS ??


I LOVE Acronyms’ (If I didn't know or use them every day, I'd be lost @ work !!), but if you going to use them can we please use the common courtesy of ....

...either 'spelling it out in full', & putting the T or FLA in brackets...

or

Using the T or FLA & (putting the full descriptor in brackets afterwards).


Thank you for your co-operation !


SA




PS T or FLA = THREE or FOUR LETTER ACROYNM

Thanks Dad!

 

[Systems Adict]

GCS= most often means Ground Control Station when referring to UAVs etc.

Forgive the one line answer but such a simple question cannot be explained more fully without difficulty,

Cheers,
Mac

Mac,

The point I'm trying to make is, while using Acronyms, it's better to explain what they are.

In this context I KNEW what GCS was (& it was Ground Control station), but you punch it into google & see how many variations there are.(here's an example...)

What does GCS stand for?

In my day job working on ships, GCS usually refers to the GYRO COMPASS SYSTEM, but it can also mean GUN CONTROL SYSTEM.

Additionally there are people who come here to learn things, do research, or add comments to things they know specifics about.

Not everyone understands acronyms & that's the point I'm aiming for, using sarcasim.


Apologies if you think I'm being too pedantic, but it's a pet hate !

SA :daz


PS Ur welcome Rik...

 

[riksavage]

Mac,

The point I'm trying to make is, while using Acronyms, it's better to explain what they are.

In this context I KNEW what GCS was (& it was Ground Control station), but you punch it into google & see how many variations there are.(here's an example...)

What does GCS stand for?

In my day job working on ships, GCS usually refers to the GYRO COMPASS SYSTEM, but it can also mean GUN CONTROL SYSTEM.

Additionally there are people who come here to learn things, do research, or add comments to things they know specifics about.

Not everyone understands acronyms & that's the point I'm aiming for, using sarcasim.


Apologies if you think I'm being too pedantic, but it's a pet hate !

SA :daz


PS Ur welcome Rik...

Adding to my enthusiasm for a Watchkeeper at sea, now that the UK (BAE Systems) and France (Dassault Aviation) have formally signed an agreement to build on the Mantis technology demonstrator and design a Medium-Altitude, Long-Endurance (MALE) UCAV I see no reason why they shouldn't look at the possibility of making it carrier capable for QE & CdG/PA2 class vessels. Mantis MkII with its twin engine configuration, composite materials and high payload should offer an ideal maritime surveillance asset (land and see based) and even a potential host for MASC. EMALS allows for varying launch speeds, this should allow for a relatively low speed assisted launch of a Mantis derived UCAV. Add folding wings and you should end up with a relatively cheap alternative to a manned platform with the added benefit of range/endurance and not having to worry about CSAR (search and rescue) over hostile airspace should it get whacked.

The UK/France plan to share strike carriers (assuming one QE is sold off or fitted out as a Commando Carrier) means a joint UCAV designed for use off either the French or UK active carrier would allow for pooling of resources and a common training/maintenance programme. The same way Frances decision to opt for Predator will leverage of the US/UK operating base at Creech.

With Rivet Joint still on the cards and R1 UK prop assets active the only gap is that left by NIMROD maritime surveillance,a future MALE drone should be able to fill this gap very nicely at a fraction of the through life operating costs.

With limited numbers of expensive F35C's available, a cheaper UCAV would take the pressure off in environments where a state of the art CAP/CAS is not required, but quality ISTAR is.

 

[1805]

Excellent to HMS Bulwark at Greenwich on the news, and giving a good demo of its capability. The Captain call it a Swiss Army knife for its versatility; is this a sign the RN is realising it has to do more to put its case forward.

 

[Hambo]

Amazing doc on military history, "how to command a nuclear submarine" follows the perisher course on HMS Triumph. Can't believe they let the cameras see so much, yes the displays in the ops room are faded out but you see ops in the littorals, counter detection tactics and even shows the boat going deep directly below a type 23 to evade, with the naration pointing out that the sub couldnt be detected. Brilliant stuff for the amateur but suprised me how easily they get detected in
The shallows.

 

[Commander Krill]

Amazing doc on military history, "how to command a nuclear submarine" follows the perisher course on HMS Triumph. Can't believe they let the cameras see so much, yes the displays in the ops room are faded out but you see ops in the littorals, counter detection tactics and even shows the boat going deep directly below a type 23 to evade, with the naration pointing out that the sub couldnt be detected. Brilliant stuff for the amateur but suprised me how easily they get detected in
The shallows.

An absolutely fantastic series!

I'm leaving for my training in 13 months to be a Submariner in the Royal Navy, so it was a nice, allbeit limited, insight into life on a submarine.

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I wonder if the Royal Navy has considered adding tomahawk missles to it frigates and destroyers as well as reconfiguring a couple of their Vanguard-class SSBNs to SSGNs.

 

[StobieWan]

I wonder if the Royal Navy has considered adding tomahawk missles to it frigates and destroyers as well as reconfiguring a couple of their Vanguard-class SSBNs to SSGNs.

I'd have thought recent events with Libya might have underlined that it'd be useful to fit out the Darings with strike length VLS with the idea of loading them with Scalp possibly.

The Vanguards aren't a suitable case for conversion as they're likely to be too old to usefully re-role once they're replaced in the SSN task.

Ian

 

[1805]

I'd have thought recent events with Libya might have underlined that it'd be useful to fit out the Darings with strike length VLS with the idea of loading them with Scalp possibly.

The Vanguards aren't a suitable case for conversion as they're likely to be too old to usefully re-role once they're replaced in the SSN task.

Ian

I agree, with no fixed wing carrier capability for c10 years the addition of SCALP to the Darings should be a priority, even allowing for the current funding issues.

 

[WillS]

I agree, with no fixed wing carrier capability for c10 years the addition of SCALP to the Darings should be a priority, even allowing for the current funding issues.

On a related topic, I don't know if anyone heard the interview with the Defence Analyst Francis Tusa on BBC Radio 4's "Today" program on Tuesday morning?

He mentioned that talk in defence circles on Monday was that the RAF were initiating discussions about reactivating one of the carriers+harriers for anti-ground ops in Libya because the cost of providing cover that way was significantly less than the bill the MoD was facing for basing (in Italy?) and flying Tornados in the same role.

It seems that the GR4 vs. GR9 operational cost comparisons the pro-Navy people were putting out before the SDSR were pretty accurate. Tornados + Storm Shadows are fine for the anti-air supression role but when it comes to loitering over potential battlefields with Brimstones etc, waiting for Gaddaffi's forces to move, the GR9s would be a lot more affordable.

Of course, he said, such an idea would be a non-starter in Downing Street. The implication being that the idea would be crushed because it'd make the SDSR look silly rather than because it was a bad idea. There's been a lot of UK newspaper coverage over the last couple of days about the cost of operating a Tornado.

WillS

 

[1805]

On a related topic, I don't know if anyone heard the interview with the Defence Analyst Francis Tusa on BBC Radio 4's "Today" program on Tuesday morning?

He mentioned that talk in defence circles on Monday was that the RAF were initiating discussions about reactivating one of the carriers+harriers for anti-ground ops in Libya because the cost of providing cover that way was significantly less than the bill the MoD was facing for basing (in Italy?) and flying Tornados in the same role.

It seems that the GR4 vs. GR9 operational cost comparisons the pro-Navy people were putting out before the SDSR were pretty accurate. Tornados + Storm Shadows are fine for the anti-air supression role but when it comes to loitering over potential battlefields with Brimstones etc, waiting for Gaddaffi's forces to move, the GR9s would be a lot more affordable.

Of course, he said, such an idea would be a non-starter in Downing Street. The implication being that the idea would be crushed because it'd make the SDSR look silly rather than because it was a bad idea. There's been a lot of UK newspaper coverage over the last couple of days about the cost of operating a Tornado.

WillS

I went to a book launch last night and the 1st Sea Lord was giving a speech, at one point he was talking very positively about the RAF (mind it was in the RAF club) and the need for the CVF as purple assets. I notice Liam Fox in the audience nodding supportivily as he mentioned it. It would be nice to see a reversal on the GR9, I don't think it would be impossible. No one like to admit they were wrong but this Government seems to be more open then most (look at the proposed sell off of the Forests?)

 

[riksavage]

On a related topic, I don't know if anyone heard the interview with the Defence Analyst Francis Tusa on BBC Radio 4's "Today" program on Tuesday morning?

He mentioned that talk in defence circles on Monday was that the RAF were initiating discussions about reactivating one of the carriers+harriers for anti-ground ops in Libya because the cost of providing cover that way was significantly less than the bill the MoD was facing for basing (in Italy?) and flying Tornados in the same role.

It seems that the GR4 vs. GR9 operational cost comparisons the pro-Navy people were putting out before the SDSR were pretty accurate. Tornados + Storm Shadows are fine for the anti-air supression role but when it comes to loitering over potential battlefields with Brimstones etc, waiting for Gaddaffi's forces to move, the GR9s would be a lot more affordable.

Of course, he said, such an idea would be a non-starter in Downing Street. The implication being that the idea would be crushed because it'd make the SDSR look silly rather than because it was a bad idea. There's been a lot of UK newspaper coverage over the last couple of days about the cost of operating a Tornado.

WillS

With the substantial leap in weapons capacity of the Astute class over the T's (all seven being Tomahawk capable, max potential load-out 25+) I seriously doubt the surface fleet (T26) will be fitted with SCALP/Tomahawk based on current belt tightening, it's not a operational priority. The T's/Astutes can deploy from their home port anywhere on the planet in 15 man-days with no need for RFA support, they are stand alone assets, undetectable by all but the most sophisticated adversaries.

Money spent making T26 Tomahawk/SCALP capable will be IMHO better spent elsewhere, invested in deep-strike systems for the F35C fleet for examble. At one million dollars for Tomahawk and 800.000 a pop for Stormshadow there are only so many missiles one can buy and keep current. You load out every T26 and Astute with Tomahawks and other weapons systems will suffer due to lack of funds. I would rather see the T26 sacrifice deepstrike in favour of a top of the line AsW system to ensure the fleet remains balanced. Wildcat will be a world leader, combine that with a cutting edge towed array and I will be happy.

Tomahawk equipped T/Astute's plus land based Stormshadow armed aircraft and a QE/F35C package post 2020 is a potent combo, short of WWIII that's enough strategic clout based on what we are witnessing today.

The UK's Tornado/Typhoon/Trafalgar Class/Sentinel/AWACS/VC10 combination is providing enough bang for buck over Libya without bringing back the GR9's. If the UK moved the GR4's from Norfolk to the Med (as with Typhoon), then the transit times would be reduced and subsequent loiter times increased . Why that's not been done is for reasons unknown. GR4's will be used for specific missions, they can carry Stormshadow, RAPTOR, Paveway and Brimstone, ideal for degrading ground formations/C&C centres. This is a coalition exercise, other general CAS duties can be provided by the UK's Med allies (Spain/Italy AV8B), we are all in this together remember (bar the Germans).

 

[Palnatoke]

Can I ask;

What's the status on the two new carriers?

One is under construction, the other one is not?
When is the ships to reach the navy (commissioned)

The airgroup
What's the status of the airgroup; when are the planes to be delivered? What about the cost (I am under impression that the F35 is getting a little bit more expensive than planned).
How many are planned/budgetted?

 

[riksavage]

Can I ask;

What's the status on the two new carriers?

One is under construction, the other one is not?
When is the ships to reach the navy (commissioned)

The airgroup
What's the status of the airgroup; when are the planes to be delivered? What about the cost (I am under impression that the F35 is getting a little bit more expensive than planned).
How many are planned/budgetted?

Check the following:

Aircraft Carriers - BAE Systems

First in class fully operational as a strike carrier by 2020. Number of F35C's will depend on final price/budget. I suspect first batch will consist of a conversion unit and possibly two sqn (1 x RAF, 1 x FAA), max 40. Second batch of 40 ordered later. Enough to equip one carrier only and provide the RAF with the option for land based deep-strike.

? being will both ever be operational together, or will one be sold or held in reserve for periods when the primary asset is in refit. More likely the latter.

My view is the UK will operate one as a giant tri-service Wasp Class catering to aound 18 F35C plus Apache, plus Wildcat, plus Merlin rather than as a pure strike asset. This will allow the UK to ditch Ocean and leave the amphib force with an active ARG comprising 1 x QE, 1 x Albion & 2 x Bay. Enough to lift a single Commando ++ (not the whole brigade).

 

[Jhom]

Can somebody tell me the actual composition of the Royal Navy??

 

[Systems Adict]

Can somebody tell me the actual composition of the Royal Navy??

HERE is all you need to know....(see link below to RN website)

fleet-today

SA

 

[StevoJH]

Quick question.

The 6 T45's were ordered in the very early 2000's (2001?), with 12 T45's being the plan until much later, why werent they all ordered at once as a single large contract? Surely that would have been the quickest way?

Or was it always the 'unofficial' plan to only purchase six?

 

[riksavage]

Quick question.

The 6 T45's were ordered in the very early 2000's (2001?), with 12 T45's being the plan until much later, why werent they all ordered at once as a single large contract? Surely that would have been the quickest way?

Or was it always the 'unofficial' plan to only purchase six?

RN tends to order in batches. The desire was for twelve, but I doubt any sitting government would commit to that number in one fell swoop. Plus by taking a batch approach, the second run can be modified based on operational lessons learnt or changes in technology. T42's were ordered in 3 separate batches, with design changes incorporated into each batch. I suspect it also spreads the cost, components will be ordered for a complete batch of ships, hopefully allowing for better price deals without having to commit to a full order of say 12 completed sub-systems.

Post Cold War there was no way 12 DDG's would be ordered. A single T45 has the tracking/firepower of 5 T42's thus reducing the need for so many to protect the fleet. Plus stand-alone deployments are better serviced by cheaper GP Frigates. Personally, based on the plan to have only one active QE/Albion & 2 x Bays, 6 DDG's is ample, the real issue is how many T26's will come on-line to provide AsW fleet support and still allow for global fly the flag deployments.

Rather than see more T45's, I want to see the existing 6 fitted for options turned into fitted with.