13 kg short-range laser guided missile fired from a VLS? Better to have a steerable mount, point & shoot, surely?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I don't think there is any plan for FASGW-H to be shipbourne, I just think speaking hypothetically it makes more sense than LMM. But I'd add to that that Vulcano makes more sense than that and that I'm pretty sure the average ship-mounted AShM would outperform FASGW-H in most parameters so I don't think it'll ever happen.
I think improved main gun capabilities a la Vulcano etc would be the way to go, with Sea Skua/FASGW-H/Marte Mk II/whatever on the helicopter. If one is really feeling the pinch and needs more anti-ship weapons, then so long as the design has enough space for a rack of Harpoons/Exocets or something similar, I'm sure they could be included. Depends on the user's requirements really.
Was thinking about whether packing multiple missiles in the same VLS tube would be possible. But if you were going for an additional launching mechanism perhaps a RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) type launcher would be the way to go.
Yep..stick a five inch on the front and add a pair of remotely operable stabilised 30mm's and you get coverage all around out to about 3km and across the front arc out to 20+ with standard unguided rounds and 100-120km with the Vulcano stuff. Can't see the attractions of adding a laser guided light missile with a range of 5-6km on there.
Ian
Ian
Don't get me wrong, completely on board with Larger Caliber / Volcano option. We were just exploring missile options, so I was just discussing the LMM as it was being marketed as a possible shipbourne system.
If the T26 gets one (or two) 127mm guns with space for a harpoon type launcher if required in the future, fine by me.
My thoughts on this are that I think that fitting Harpoon launchers on the T26 are not needed especially if this takes away cash from other items. I think that the CBG needs dedicated ASW vessels and a decent point air defence system for when the Astors are all used up on the Darings in a hot war. The probability of a Harpoon or 2 getting by their area and point defences of a half modern frigate, not to mention an air defence vessel is small without a cordinated swarmed attack and we know that we wont have the number of hulls/missiles for this. Dedicated ASuW should be left to the SSNs and the carrier air wing. Soft target Asuw can be done with sea skua, future uavs and modified SAMs.
Hunting skiffs using GBP500m+ vessels a hunt skiffs is an expensive joke and a off the shelf vessels like the KNS Jasiri rotting away in Spain could be had at around 50mUSD.
Hunting skiffs using GBP500m+ vessels a hunt skiffs is an expensive joke and a off the shelf vessels like the KNS Jasiri rotting away in Spain could be had at around 50mUSD.
Indeed.
The value of something like LMM is that extra mounts can be bolted on quickly & cheaply, if you think that you really, really, need them. One main gun can't cover all angles at once - though that's probably more of an argument for secondary guns, such as the 30mm mounts already mentioned.
Where LMM launchers might be useful is as bolt-ons on small vessels that don't have a main gun.
Article in the Telegraph from the French Admiral Pierre-Francois Forissier, suggesting that the 2nd CVF, PoW, should be jointly shared for training etc. Makes more sense than mothballing it.
Also, the French were apparently shocked by the RN cuts last year and feel a second carrier off Libya would very useful at the moment... I see that Apaches flying from HMS Ocean flew their first mission last night; I suspect that the government is starting to realize what they've lost also...
I just wish the UK would lease a squadron of F18s or Rafeals for the interim before QE just to keep even a basic capability that could fly from a US / French carrier. I know we have 4 FAA pilots flying with the USN, but that is the bare minimum to keepskills alive...
Also, the French were apparently shocked by the RN cuts last year and feel a second carrier off Libya would very useful at the moment... I see that Apaches flying from HMS Ocean flew their first mission last night; I suspect that the government is starting to realize what they've lost also...
I just wish the UK would lease a squadron of F18s or Rafeals for the interim before QE just to keep even a basic capability that could fly from a US / French carrier. I know we have 4 FAA pilots flying with the USN, but that is the bare minimum to keepskills alive...
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Why does everyone think it'll be mothballed? QE wont be available 24/7, PoW will most likely be used to fill the gap while she is in refit, just like the Invincibles were used.
No more then the MN have been cut. The only difference is that the french are in a different part of their replacement cycle RE: Frigates and made a different (probably similarly priced) decision with regards to the amphibious fleet.
F-18's arent available, deliveries are already behind the original schedule due to the USN allowing the RAAF to steal 24 build slots.
Rafales are very expensive (and probably less capable then F-18F) and have an extremely low current production rate, I doubt the French would be willing to increase it for a very short run of additional airframes.
Reading recent parlamentry statements the language is suggesting only one will be converted to cats and traps. Joining up with the French would hopefully free up the cash to convert both. Keeping one as a massive helicopter carrier is very likely to put it in moth balls, if not immediately then under a future defence review.
Yes the MN has been cut, but they have not done anything as radical (or stupid, depending on your view) as removing a core capability as carrier strike.
You may be right, but I'm sure there are some spare carrier capable aircraft even if not the latest versions.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Statements made in the news by the Minister suggest otherwise.
Yet. Its a bit different retiring a 25-30 year old ship than it is to retire a 10 year old ship. In addition, given the way the MN have been delaying the issue of getting a second carrier, will they end up replacing CDG?
Really? What carrier capable aircraft are available that are not completely worn out with their takeoff/landing cycles completely used up?
But if they represent the threat in an environment, they must be dealt with. It's not a matter of building the ship to be a "skiff hunter", merely of building a ship that has the capacity to effectively and with the greatest possible economy address likely targets in the environment in which it is operating. There is every chance these targets will comprise of multiple smaller vessels (the old "asymmetric threat" line gets trotted out here a lot) in the future as opposed to major surface combatants.
I agree with you in that if you used such an expensive vessel to exclusively address these threats, it wouldn't necessarily be cost-effective - but it was my impression that these vessels were supposed to be general-purpose, and it's reasonable to assume that dealing with small, numerous threats may be a part of that.
Exactly, the USN is having kittens about fatigue and serviceable life of the existing Hornet fleet. There ain't any carrier fit airframes lying around, and if they were, the USN would want 'em badly.
Ian
For starters....
Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW)
Then this....
First production contract for Thales’s Lightweight Multi-role Missile announced - Thales UK
Have a read at the 2 links, then we can come back with comments / ideas....
SA
I would be very surpised if the French didn't jump at the chance to build Rafales for the RN if the opportunity existed. I am sure they would do almost anything to win more orders and extend production. I think that comment shows an element of commercial naivety
I struggle to see the value of a CVF without cats; I agree it would fall victim to a defence cut quite quickly. It would be better to sell early and get a good price.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
It really depends on how quickly you want them, how much you are willing to pay etc.
If you want them extremely rapidly, in order to match the order they might have to massively increase staffing, this would include additional training, they would then need to work out what to do with the staff.
For an order of 60 or 70, yes it would be worth it, but for an order of 24-36? (1-2 squadrons plus training detachment), i'm not so sure.
If you want them extremely rapidly, in order to match the order they might have to massively increase staffing, this would include additional training, they would then need to work out what to do with the staff.
For an order of 60 or 70, yes it would be worth it, but for an order of 24-36? (1-2 squadrons plus training detachment), i'm not so sure.
Recent QA in May in the House of Parliament - make your own mind up...
Question
Graham Jones (Hyndburn, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the inclusion of (a) steam catapults and arrestor hooks and (b) electro-magnetic propulsion units in the design specification of a new aircraft carrier.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology),
Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
As announced in the strategic defence and security review on 19 October 2010, we will fit one of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers with catapults and arrestor gear to operate the more capable carrier variant joint strike fighter.
Investigations into the aircraft launch and recovery systems—and a wide range of other factors—are under way. At this stage, the US Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapult and the US Advanced Arrestor Gear (AAG) recovery system appears to be the most promising solution, though we have not ruled out steam catapults or MK7 arrestor gear.
We currently expect to take firm decisions on the overall conversion strategy in late 2012.
But they still have some level of carrier strike capability, the RN does not. The government seems to think flying Apaches is a good substitute - all well and good until one gets hit...
As 1805 says I'm sure the French would jump at the order even for a squadron or two.
The problem is that when we get Dave-C we then have to wait some more whilst we train the pilots to fly them from scratch... We need to try and keep a squadron flying in the interim, even if it is from a US / French carrier.