The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

The Mod is just trying to get the price down , BAE wanted £500m per hull the Mod wants to pay max £300m per hull.

From what I hear they will be built in 3 Batch's of 4 and yes the Mod wants 13 but will only get funding for 12 .

And 4 of could be Diesel powered to save costs.

The Royal Navy wants a strong ASW fit after losing Nimrod Mr4.
The Air Defence side will not be great as thats what Type 45 is there for.

It will only have 12 SAM'S in a c2 unit.

Puma Boy, I L O V E your figures.....

Can you tell me which leprachaun you tortured get them?:dbanana

I've not heard anything like this being bandied about anywhere in the Industry, or seen anything similar in any reputable magazine article or on military information website.


Can you quote your source / reference the website, or news article, so that we can all read it in awe of your knowledge???

For instance....

More Details on Type 26 | Think Defence

(the article is now 14 months old, but contains lots of information that has come directly from 'the horses' mouth i.e. UK Govt / MoD / BAE).



The building in batches of 3 might be a go-er but I wouldn't count on it, as it's W A Y - T O O - E A R L Y to be speculating about such things.


Semi-Known / Agreed Facts :

#1. Ship design has went from being C1 - C3 (with circa 25 - 30 hulls), to just GCS - (Global Combat Ship) (with circa 16 - 18 hulls MAX) (Although IMHO we'll be lucky to get 12).

#2. The MoD (I believe), have opted to go down the GCS route, as it means that others would be getting a "very similar design to the RN" (probably at a similar cost, but that depends on the weapons fit, training, spares, etc), with the idea being that the likes of Canada, Australia, India, Brazil, UK & anyone else who wants to join in, can have a similar hull type / shape, being built on a "production line" type format, so that 'X' amount of engines, Radars, command systems, etc are purchased from a manufacturer as a 'job-lot', thus reducing overall costs due to 'buying-in-bulk'.

#3. The DESIGN has not been agreed / formalised / ratified by ANYONE, & until it does, we can only SPECULATE, till either the MoD / UK Govt / BAE come out & say the job is done.

As for 4 ships running on diesel, you're wrong !

They'll ALL run on diesel, just like most ships today.

If however, you're implying that there will be no Gas Turbines in the hull layout, or that they're going for an all electric propulsion system; then again, NO-ONE has a clue, as nothing has been decided....

As for the ASW angle, I'd have to say that you might just (by accident ??), be onto something. After all a ship that will allegedy have a Bow sonar & x2 towed arrays, would be assumed to be an EXCELLENT platform to use for ASW.

Finally, your 12 SAM's issue...

Well I'd follow that it's more likely to be in multiples of 4, so 12, 36 or even 48 might be more appropriate. Experience from having being on lots of different ships & looking at what has went before / been built across the globe, would indicate the methodology & my reasoning...


Would anyone like to add anything / amicably discuss / correct my comments ??

I would appreciate ANY comments that help continue the discussion....

SA

 

[Repulse]

My dislike of the T26 option is purely based on my belief that we will not get enough to make an effective escort force. If we get the max 16-18 then I will be much less concerned!

I agree with SA that the design is far from confirmed and will not be so till the end of the year according to the RN officer in charge of the project. I have seen 3 designs recently one on the BAE website, one in the last edition of Warships World and a photo on another website of a BAE model. All are similar with the exception of the VLS and CIWS layout. The model had what looked 2 x 8 VLS tube layout, which would mean 64 CAMM missiles (2 x 8 x 4). That looks ok for air defence, but not sure if some would be used for TLAM etc.

Also, looking at the hanger shape it does look like we are sacrificing space for the new fangled UAV dog house. Could fit a second helicopter if they shaped it properly.

 

[riksavage]

Puma Boy, I L O V E your figures.....

Can you tell me which leprachaun you tortured get them?:dbanana

I've not heard anything like this being bandied about anywhere in the Industry, or seen anything similar in any reputable magazine article or on military information website.


Can you quote your source / reference the website, or news article, so that we can all read it in awe of your knowledge???

For instance....

More Details on Type 26 | Think Defence

(the article is now 14 months old, but contains lots of information that has come directly from 'the horses' mouth i.e. UK Govt / MoD / BAE).



The building in batches of 3 might be a go-er but I wouldn't count on it, as it's W A Y - T O O - E A R L Y to be speculating about such things.


Semi-Known / Agreed Facts :

#1. Ship design has went from being C1 - C3 (with circa 25 - 30 hulls), to just GCS - (Global Combat Ship) (with circa 16 - 18 hulls MAX) (Although IMHO we'll be lucky to get 12).

#2. The MoD (I believe), have opted to go down the GCS route, as it means that others would be getting a "very similar design to the RN" (probably at a similar cost, but that depends on the weapons fit, training, spares, etc), with the idea being that the likes of Canada, Australia, India, Brazil, UK & anyone else who wants to join in, can have a similar hull type / shape, being built on a "production line" type format, so that 'X' amount of engines, Radars, command systems, etc are purchased from a manufacturer as a 'job-lot', thus reducing overall costs due to 'buying-in-bulk'.

#3. The DESIGN has not been agreed / formalised / ratified by ANYONE, & until it does, we can only SPECULATE, till either the MoD / UK Govt / BAE come out & say the job is done.

As for 4 ships running on diesel, you're wrong !

They'll ALL run on diesel, just like most ships today.

If however, you're implying that there will be no Gas Turbines in the hull layout, or that they're going for an all electric propulsion system; then again, NO-ONE has a clue, as nothing has been decided....

As for the ASW angle, I'd have to say that you might just (by accident ??), be onto something. After all a ship that will allegedy have a Bow sonar & x2 towed arrays, would be assumed to be an EXCELLENT platform to use for ASW.

Finally, your 12 SAM's issue...

Well I'd follow that it's more likely to be in multiples of 4, so 12, 36 or even 48 might be more appropriate. Experience from having being on lots of different ships & looking at what has went before / been built across the globe, would indicate the methodology & my reasoning...


Would anyone like to add anything / amicably discuss / correct my comments ??

I would appreciate ANY comments that help continue the discussion....

SA

Hopefully the soft launch CAMM units, packed in quad packs will allow for upscaling and down-scaling of numbers relatively easily depending upon mission requirements. Fitted for, not with - low intensity fly the flag missions a ship may deploy with a mere 24, high intensity war-fighting ramp up the numbers to 48.

One thing for sure the whole armed forces are going to have to be pretty damned flexible moving forward. Recent briefings by Senior Army Commanders at the Royal Services Institute endorsed the need for the UK to focus on building expeditionary capabilities once A-Stan begins to draw-down - music to the Navy's ears.

T26 will definitely need a good sized mission bay to allow for the supporting of embarked forces, NEO type evacuations and a AsW towed array and hopefully something like BAE's Talisman moving forward. I hope and pray it will be built to a minimum base standard including: Artisan, 127mm gun, CAMM, 30mm & Wildcat, but be capable of upgrade pretty quickly to fit a specific mission profile (CAMM load-out increased, Merlin + Wildcat, AsW towed array and/or MCM fit using Talisman). With Wildcat being fitted with a more comprehensive array of missile systems the need for Harpoon (based on the current threat environment) must be reduced. I can't recall the last time a Harpoon was used in anger fired from a ship? Lynx firing SeaSkua on the other hand is a tried and tested combination, Wildcat will offer a quantum leap over Lynx, so is Harpoon an absolute must have?

I actually wonder whether anyone as looked at the statistics of Western weapon systems used at sea, or from the sea in the last 25 years, seen which weapons systems have been used the most, which have proved the most successful and which have proved the most reliable?

 

[Repulse]

I'm really surprised (in a good way) that Artisan will only cost £100m for 18 units... That's good value for money for once. Cheap enough to put on a light frigate eh

 

[StevoJH]

I'm really surprised (in a good way) that Artisan will only cost £100m for 18 units... That's good value for money for once. Cheap enough to put on a light frigate eh

That was the development cost.

No idea what the production cost will be.

 

[kev 99]

I can't recall the last time a Harpoon was used in anger fired from a ship? Lynx firing SeaSkua on the other hand is a tried and tested combination, Wildcat will offer a quantum leap over Lynx, so is Harpoon an absolute must have?

Harpoon fired from a ship in anger? As far as I'm aware there are only 3 incidents and the last was in 1988.

From wiki:

In November 1980 during Operation Morvarid Iranian missile boats attacked and sank two Iraqi Osa class missile boats, one of the weapons used was the Harpoon missile.

In 1986, the United States Navy sank at least two Libyan patrol boats in the Gulf of Sidra. Two Harpoon missiles were launched from the USS Yorktown with no confirmed results and several others from A-6 Intruder aircraft that were said to have hit their targets.[5][6] Initial reports claimed that the USS Yorktown scored hits on a patrol boat, but action reports indicated that the target may have been a false one and that no ships were hit by those missiles.

+ USS Joesph Strauss fired a Harpoon during Operation Praying Mantis which missed.

I actually wonder whether anyone as looked at the statistics of Western weapon systems used at sea, or from the sea in the last 25 years, seen which weapons systems have been used the most, which have proved the most successful and which have proved the most reliable?

The only ones that I can think of that have been used extensively are Tomahawk and the or the Mk8 4.5" (excluding air launched).

 

[fretburner]

I can't recall the last time a Harpoon was used in anger fired from a ship?

Maybe those ship-launched Harpoons act more like deterrents? You don't usually mess up with something you know could hit you back and hit hard.

 

[riksavage]

Maybe those ship-launched Harpoons act more like deterrents? You don't usually mess up with something you know could hit you back and hit hard.

T26 will have Wildcat carrying anti-surface missiles, so will that not (based on the todays likely threats) offer an appropriate level of deterrent. Short of WWIII, most engagements are likely to be in a littoral environment or against swarm attacks from cheap Iranian style fast attack boats. If the RN needs to save money I would rather see a fully operational Wildcat + full missile compliment than Harpoon. The former offers greater flexibility with a cheaper ordnance. We need to get away from Rolls Royce solutions to deal with cheaply equipped asymmetrical threats operating in a littoral environment. Leave Harpoon (or next gen) to the SSN's and a F35C type platform designed for high intensity state-on-state warfare.

 

[fretburner]

^ Harpoons are indeed overkill for those fast attack crafts.

Are the T26 going to have mission modules ala LCS?

 

[StevoJH]

I like the idea of Helicopter based antiship missiles. You can use those for over the horizon stuff (since you'll probably need a helicopter for target identification before firing a Harpoon anyway) and use your Medium gun (4.5", 5" or 6") on anything within radar range.

For anything within Helicopter range, a bunch of Helicopters (carrier based) popping over the horizon and letting lose with anti-ship missiles is probably just as lethal as a bunch of F-18's or F-35's doing the same thing. You'd just probably be firing smaller missiles and take longer to reach the target.

Wonder what the cost differential would be?

Also, does anyone know how far above waterline the Sampson Radar on the T45 is? It would be interesting to see what the radar horizon is for a low-flying aircraft/missile and if the more powerful radar could detect an incoming strike before they could detect it (ignoring radar emissions for a bit?).

 

[StobieWan]

The one drawback with relying on a helicopter for anti shipping is it may well be down for maintenance or off someplace else doing ASW work. There's a good niche for an intermediate missile with a range of 20-30km, inertial nav and a bi or tri mode sensor, data link and a sensor fused warhead that can do land attack, hit a hard or soft target quite easily, track a moving target and which is cheap and light enough to carry in packs of four.

I understand that CAMM could have a secondary anti surface role but padding out the anti surface role of the Type 26 with a decent precision attack medium calibre gun would be a huge help.

Ian

 

[kev 99]

The one drawback with relying on a helicopter for anti shipping is it may well be down for maintenance or off someplace else doing ASW work. There's a good niche for an intermediate missile with a range of 20-30km, inertial nav and a bi or tri mode sensor, data link and a sensor fused warhead that can do land attack, hit a hard or soft target quite easily, track a moving target and which is cheap and light enough to carry in packs of four.

I understand that CAMM could have a secondary anti surface role but padding out the anti surface role of the Type 26 with a decent precision attack medium calibre gun would be a huge help.

Ian

The largest article I read about CAMM came from some MBDA bigwig and it mentioned that it will have an anti surface capability, this was a couple of years ago though and it may well have been dropped by now.

 

[Bonza]

Wouldn't surprise me if CAMM ends up with some anti-surface capabilities, as ESSM, Standard and at least one variant of RAM have shown similar capabilities. Not saying it will have but it's definitely possible. Abe might have some more detailed observations on that.

In terms of the intermediate range options mentioned by StobieWan, I would think there's potential there for developing guided munitions for the 4.5 or 5 inch gun. With the kind of ranges getting bandied about for new ammunition types I imagine offboard targeting and terminal guidance could open up some interesting options with less cost than a dedicated anti-ship missile. For targets requiring a larger or longer ranged weapon, I'm sure there will be numerous "after market" options available for upgunning, whether its something like an evolved Harpoon or Exocet variant, or something more advanced like whatever comes out of the USN's LRASM program...

 

[Repulse]

Big fan of getting smart munitions for the RN though probably we should look to moving to a 127mm standard. If we move the cost from the 'gun' to the ammo we could implement it on cheaper patrol vessels also...

One thought is that the new Lightweight Multi-role Missile (LMM) is ASu capable and according to the info I have could be fired from a ship as well as a helicopter. Wonder if these could be fired from a VLS?

 

[Bonza]

Don't know if it'd be worth it so long as you had gun munitions worth their salt... the LMM is very small, isn't it? Seems to me if you're looking at ship-based armament they might not offer sufficient capability to justify use of VLS space when you have the main gun for longer ranges, 30mm guns for direct fire and, if necessary, potential for developing anti-surface capabilities in the CAMM. A surface-launched FASGW-H variant makes more sense to me, but even then it'd be range-limited compared to many other weapons on the market and I'm not sure it'd out-perform a notional 4.5 inch anti-ship round sufficiently to make it worth the space. That's just an opinion though (and not a particularly well-informed one at that), your mileage may vary.

 

[kev 99]

Big fan of getting smart munitions for the RN though probably we should look to moving to a 127mm standard. If we move the cost from the 'gun' to the ammo we could implement it on cheaper patrol vessels also...

One thought is that the new Lightweight Multi-role Missile (LMM) is ASu capable and according to the info I have could be fired from a ship as well as a helicopter. Wonder if these could be fired from a VLS?

You'd need a bespoke vls becuase they are tiny.

Yes Bonza a ship mounted FASGW(H) would make more sense.

 

[StevoJH]

In my opinion there is no point switching from the 4.5" gun to the 5" gun unless there is a *significant* increase in capability, especially since the Brand new T45's have been fitted with the 4.5" gun, if they were going to switch guns, T45 was the chance.

I still like the idea of the 155mm artillery based 6" gun.

 

[kev 99]

I think the chance to use smart rounds lik Volcano etc, probably represents the "significant" increase in capability that the RN would be after.

 

[StobieWan]

Vulcano from a 127mm mount would be my first thought - there's a range of guided and unguided options with much better range than standard 127mm and one of those going off over or on a boghammer would be game over. It's also an easy option to fit for and then *with* - just stick the gun on every ship and keep some stocks of the guided goodness on the RAS ships. Hell, you can airfreight out a pallet or two to a local friendly port if something goes pearshaped.


Ian

 

[Repulse]

Agree with Vulcano. I know the ammo will be more expensive, but based on the number of harpoons fired in anger you could probably be fairly conservative in your peace-time stocks.

Wasn't aware there is a planned shipbourne FASGW(H), but would make more sense if possible.