The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

I sure imagine it was along those lines or even as basic as we had the capability in the 60/70s and trying to get it back rather than thinking about what could be done or what others were doing.

There was no need for an LHD when Ocean was ordered as the RN alread had LPD's. I'd say it was more a matter of not looking to the future. Lets face it, the LPD's probably should have been replaced in the 1990's with a trio of LHD's rather then keeping the LPD's going for another 10 years and building ocean.

Just on the subject of Special Forces, I think there is a tendency to regard them as the wonder weapon. It’s important to remember that when SF meet decent armour then lose (remember Arnhem). The USMC model of having armour is much sounder; the RN needs to integrate with army RAC units more.

Since when are either the Para's or Royal Marines special forces?

The Libyan situation just shows how ineffective airpower can be on it own. One armoured regiment of Challengers would finish it off in days. As a tax payer I would be very pleased to see 50 surplus Challengers sold to the new administration (or paid for out of the aid budget) with sufficient ex army civilian instructors ;-) to operate them...landed from RN LPD/LSDs, if it stopped the RAF churning up the desert at great expense.

The key thing is not to say in there when Gaddafi has gone.

And the RN, MN & MM all have the capabilty to put much larger forces on the ground in a forced landing individually, let alone together. Obviously they decided against such a move.

If I was a British Tax payer I would definately be against the sale of Challenger II's unless they were being replaced in service.

 

[1805]

And the RN, MN & MM all have the capabilty to put much larger forces on the ground in a forced landing individually, let alone together. Obviously they decided against such a move.

If I was a British Tax payer I would definately be against the sale of Challenger II's unless they were being replaced in service.

We are scaling back the number of Challengers and sure we would have enough for sale/aid. These would not be operated by us, but we could not stop ex British forces acting as instructors....I think we did this in Muscat in the 60/70s

 

[1805]

There was no need for an LHD when Ocean was ordered as the RN alread had LPD's. I'd say it was more a matter of not looking to the future. Lets face it, the LPD's probably should have been replaced in the 1990's with a trio of LHD's rather then keeping the LPD's going for another 10 years and building ocean.



Since when are either the Para's or Royal Marines special forces?
.

Not sure I understand this post, have you not just answered it yourself. With their old steam machinery (last in the fleet?) and heavy crews, just made so much sense to replace the LPD in 1990s. Intrepid (com 1967) went into extended reserve in 1991!!!! Ocean ordered in 1993....commissioned in 1998 Fearless (com 1965!) decommissioned 2002.

Face it building Ocean just as a LPH was indefensible madness. She could have been the start of a class which could have completed for the RAN, even the Russian Mistral orders.

OK Para's and RM are not special forces....but in that direction (although they draw from them heavily)

 

[StevoJH]

Not sure I understand this post, have you not just answered it yourself. With their old steam machinery (last in the fleet?) and heavy crews, just made so much sense to replace the LPD in 1990s. Intrepid (com 1967) went into extended reserve in 1991!!!! Ocean ordered in 1993....commissioned in 1998 Fearless (com 1965!) decommissioned 2002.

Maybe I misread your previous post....

Face it building Ocean just as a LPH was indefensible madness. She could have been the start of a class which could have completed for the RAN, even the Russian Mistral orders.

Aint hindsight a wonderful thing? LHD's werent even on the horizon for either Russia or the RAN in the early 1990's as far as i'm aware.

OK Para's and RM are not special forces....but in that direction (although they draw from them heavily)

Err, arent para's just leg infantry that jump out of aircraft to give an addition theatre entry capability? Marines the same except specialising in doing that from ships and having additional training that I suppose could possibly put them half way between SF & conventional forces.

 

[1805]

Err, arent para's just leg infantry that jump out of aircraft to give an addition theatre entry capability? Marines the same except specialising in doing that from ships and having additional training that I suppose could possibly put them half way between SF & conventional forces.

I am not sure it would wise to say that to a Para or RM....certainly not after a few drinks. I heard somewhere that the RM account for less than 8% of UK infantry but 50% of the special forces..via the SBS, however I would not swear by the figues.

That said I was not defending the RM/Para/SF just saving MBT are to often over looked when they are the dominating weapon on the battlefield and the RN could do with aligning itself with the RAC and the AAC (it has got much better at that now it has no Harriers!).

 

[1805]

Aint hindsight a wonderful thing? LHD's werent even on the horizon for either Russia or the RAN in the early 1990's as far as i'm aware.

.

Agree the potential exports are purely opportunities with hindsight. But the LHD concept was well established with the USN (they were on their second class?), was just logical and common sense, which the: Spanish, French and RAN went with.

The RN didn't even go with the idea with the Albion/Bulwark, just buildig 2 dull LPD. The Fearless & Interpid had always been under pressure to justify their role and it is hardly surpising one has already been "reserved".

Once again unimaginative old concepts.....oh and I am not even talking about the Type 26!

 

[Hambo]

Agree the potential exports are purely opportunities with hindsight. But the LHD concept was well established with the USN (they were on their second class?), was just logical and common sense, which the: Spanish, French and RAN went with.

The RN didn't even go with the idea with the Albion/Bulwark, just buildig 2 dull LPD. The Fearless & Interpid had always been under pressure to justify their role and it is hardly surpising one has already been "reserved".

Once again unimaginative old concepts.....oh and I am not even talking about the Type 26!

The LHD concept was established in the USN in the late 1970's with the Tarawa class but you can't seriously compare any European navy to the US. A small detail is that the USN can impose a 500 mile bubble of air dominance over any landing zone by virtue of 13 Carrier Battle groups, scores of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and SSN's and a USMC plus reserve that was bigger than the entire cold war British Army. The USMC mindset about opposed landings was also entirely different from that of the RN.

The RN and 7,000 man RM was tasked to defend the Norway flank, trying to prevent any soviet move down from northern norway and for that Intrepid and Fearless and civvie RoRo's would have been used. Certainly in the 1980's there was no real budget as the money was going on SSN's, Type 22, Tornado etc etc.

Also look at the RN's experience of real combat. There are pictures of Daggers and Skyhawks flying mast height over Fearless and Intrepid, how they weren't hit was a miracle, but could a 22,000 ton ship docked down, with a deck packed with helo's and supplies survived in that scenario? So post Falklands there was a view that survivability would be an issue and no real budget in any case and a very specific mission that didn't really warrant LHD. The RN was never going to do an Iowa Jima but it might do a pebble island style helicopter insertion.

Then you come to the end of the cold war and a period of change and uncertainty. GW1 was basically cold war weaponry, then we come to the balkans conflict , where lighter forces were used. In the late 1990's There was limited money and the RN was allowed a aviation support ship for less than £300m, if there was a dock involved , the ship wouldn't have been built for that price and so no Ocean at all. At the time of Oceans development contract there was still no euro contemporary LHD.

You could argue that the Albion's should have been built with more aviation capacity, but again, budget and existing fleets dictate. Ocean was just in service so had 15 plus years on the clock and the three invincibles had 10-15 years on the clock, so the RN had plenty of potential for aviation operations (and only 3 x 9 sea king commandos anyway?), with limited numbers of Sea Harrier there was plenty of spare deck space, so could you justify adding hugely to the cost of the albions or building them as flat tops? I'm sure when Albion, bulwark and Ocean get replaced it will be with LHD , BAe already have the graphics of a concept online, but it needs a big portion of hindsight to criticise the RN for not building them earlier.

We are only seeing nations such as spain, france and australia going the LHD route now because it is cost effective for todays world, none are expected to do opposed landing , nor is there an obvious need for high intensity war fighting, hence the canberras for instance are lightly armed. Those nations have run there existing amphibs into the ground before they replaced them, I don't think they possess more logic or common sense than anyone else.

When it comes to capacity , our LPH, LPD, Bays, Merlin, lynx, Apache, 3 Cmdo brigade and supporting elements stack up well against the capabilities of Spain, France and Australia , and in a few years we will be on par with france again with a CTOL carrier.

As for the Russian Mistral deal, its not the 20,000 tons of ship they want, its the command and control system and anything else they can get Thales to provide. Your use of hindsight is truly amazing, though not really surprising as your ideas are often "off the wall", it was just a few months ago you had won the falklands war with a few Chieftan tanks.

 

[1805]

The LHD concept was established in the USN in the late 1970's with the Tarawa class but you can't seriously compare any European navy to the US. A small detail is that the USN can impose a 500 mile bubble of air dominance over any landing zone by virtue of 13 Carrier Battle groups, scores of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and SSN's and a USMC plus reserve that was bigger than the entire cold war British Army. The USMC mindset about opposed landings was also entirely different from that of the RN.

The RN and 7,000 man RM was tasked to defend the Norway flank, trying to prevent any soviet move down from northern norway and for that Intrepid and Fearless and civvie RoRo's would have been used. Certainly in the 1980's there was no real budget as the money was going on SSN's, Type 22, Tornado etc etc.

Also look at the RN's experience of real combat. There are pictures of Daggers and Skyhawks flying mast height over Fearless and Intrepid, how they weren't hit was a miracle, but could a 22,000 ton ship docked down, with a deck packed with helo's and supplies survived in that scenario? So post Falklands there was a view that survivability would be an issue and no real budget in any case and a very specific mission that didn't really warrant LHD. The RN was never going to do an Iowa Jima but it might do a pebble island style helicopter insertion.

Then you come to the end of the cold war and a period of change and uncertainty. GW1 was basically cold war weaponry, then we come to the balkans conflict , where lighter forces were used. In the late 1990's There was limited money and the RN was allowed a aviation support ship for less than £300m, if there was a dock involved , the ship wouldn't have been built for that price and so no Ocean at all. At the time of Oceans development contract there was still no euro contemporary LHD.

You could argue that the Albion's should have been built with more aviation capacity, but again, budget and existing fleets dictate. Ocean was just in service so had 15 plus years on the clock and the three invincibles had 10-15 years on the clock, so the RN had plenty of potential for aviation operations (and only 3 x 9 sea king commandos anyway?), with limited numbers of Sea Harrier there was plenty of spare deck space, so could you justify adding hugely to the cost of the albions or building them as flat tops? I'm sure when Albion, bulwark and Ocean get replaced it will be with LHD , BAe already have the graphics of a concept online, but it needs a big portion of hindsight to criticise the RN for not building them earlier.

We are only seeing nations such as spain, france and australia going the LHD route now because it is cost effective for todays world, none are expected to do opposed landing , nor is there an obvious need for high intensity war fighting, hence the canberras for instance are lightly armed. Those nations have run there existing amphibs into the ground before they replaced them, I don't think they possess more logic or common sense than anyone else.

When it comes to capacity , our LPH, LPD, Bays, Merlin, lynx, Apache, 3 Cmdo brigade and supporting elements stack up well against the capabilities of Spain, France and Australia , and in a few years we will be on par with france again with a CTOL carrier.

As for the Russian Mistral deal, its not the 20,000 tons of ship they want, its the command and control system and anything else they can get Thales to provide. Your use of hindsight is truly amazing, though not really surprising as your ideas are often "off the wall", it was just a few months ago you had won the falklands war with a few Chieftan tanks.

I love your patronising history lessons, none of which has much relevance to the subject matter. However here is a date for you; the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and yet the RN continued to knock out Type 23 “Battle of the Atlantic II” focus frigates as late as 1996.

The RN generally is adequately funded if it spends it on the right things. I doubt designing a dock in to Ocean would have cost much, and they could then have decommissioned Fearless (crew 580 and steam machinery) 5 years earlier. Then just built one more as a follow on instead of the 2 Albions….a huge saving which could have gone into keeping FA2…or something else.

BTW if all that guff about the USN/USMC being so different is true why are the French/Spanish/RAN/Russians all adopting the type now??

Ahh the Cheiftan debate another one where the facts didn't support your case ;-)

 

[Hambo]

I love your patronising history lessons, none of which has much relevance to the subject matter. However here is a date for you; the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and yet the RN continued to knock out Type 23 “Battle of the Atlantic II” focus frigates as late as 1996.

The RN generally is adequately funded if it spends it on the right things. I doubt designing a dock in to Ocean would have cost much, and they could then have decommissioned Fearless (crew 580 and steam machinery) 5 years earlier. Then just built one more as a follow on instead of the 2 Albions….a huge saving which could have gone into keeping FA2…or something else.

BTW if all that guff about the USN/USMC being so different is true why are the French/Spanish/RAN/Russians all adopting the type now??

Ahh the Cheiftan debate another one where the facts didn't support your case ;-)

The French, Spanish, RAN and Russians are adopting LHD's in 2011 because the world has changed and with it the mission.

The Australians for instance have been heavily involved in the coalition efforts post 9/11, have the east Timor missions to deal with, need an efficient way to project power in their particular theatre, the Canberras make perfect sense seeing as they need to replace older ships and the future mission will require the flexibility of enhanced helicopter lift. They might not expect to perform the mission in the face of a cold war adversary firing supersonic anti ship missiles at them, hence the ships can be lightly armed and knocked out to a cheap build process. I think they actually ordered them in 2008, some 32 years after USS Tarawa, so I must be missing the point? Why are these navies some how more visionary than the RN? No one would argue that for 2011 they are a bad idea, its just that its only someone with your wisdom that seems to slag off the MOD and RN for not having a crystal ball.

Here you go again, you doubt adding something like a dock to ocean would cost much, just like in your earlier ramblings adding a flex deck, an extra 1000 tonnes, a hangar etc etc would cost much. In your lego fleets nothing costs much does it.

The RN was give a relative pittance to obtain an aviation support vessel, had it had been given suitable funds i doubt they would have built a ship with only an 18 yr life. they took an existing Invincible hull-form, built it as cheap and cheerfully as possible, with a cheap powerplant and systems for a knock down price (that may have involved some fiddling in the competition), I would say adding a floodable deck to that would have cost a bloody fortune. As it was Ocean has given and continues to give good service, so i can't see the point of the should have could have moans, just because she might not be a sexy as a concept that came a decade later.

The contracted run for Type 23 was signed for , and again, these battle of the atlantic ships continue to give fine service and whilst being knocked out until 1996, many other older classes were retired, so what should have been built instead? still they shouldnt have designed sea wolf should they, the RN should have listened to 1805 and developed sea dart, squeezed it onto a 1500 tonne corvette like a "insert class", added "something like" a kashtan, and a flex deck then sold 17,000 of them to the worlds navies, built end on end for a 400 year production run.

Go on then, do explain how a chieftan MBT could have trundled across the Falklands bog and tussock?

 

[STURM]

Just on the subject of Special Forces, I think there is a tendency to regard them as the wonder weapon. It’s important to remember that when SF meet decent armour then lose (remember Arnhem). The USMC model of having armour is much sounder; the RN needs to integrate with army RAC units more.

Well the whole point of having lightly equipped para units and special forces is not to misuse them or at least try not to. Arnhem was a specific case where things when wrong - 30 Corps was bogged down by logistical problems, terrain and German ressistance. The Germans also had armour near the Arnhem area which certainly didn't help matters.

One armoured regiment of Challengers would finish it off in days.

Sure, a regiment of Challengers would be able to reach Tripoli and nothing the Libyns put in its way would be able to stop it - but then what? Would the Challengers be able to solve the whole list of problems the Libyans are facing and would all ressistance by pro-Gadafi forces cease?

 

[1805]

The French, Spanish, RAN and Russians are adopting LHD's in 2011 because the world has changed and with it the mission.

The Australians for instance have been heavily involved in the coalition efforts post 9/11, have the east Timor missions to deal with, need an efficient way to project power in their particular theatre, the Canberras make perfect sense seeing as they need to replace older ships and the future mission will require the flexibility of enhanced helicopter lift. They might not expect to perform the mission in the face of a cold war adversary firing supersonic anti ship missiles at them, hence the ships can be lightly armed and knocked out to a cheap build process. I think they actually ordered them in 2008, some 32 years after USS Tarawa, so I must be missing the point? Why are these navies some how more visionary than the RN? No one would argue that for 2011 they are a bad idea, its just that its only someone with your wisdom that seems to slag off the MOD and RN for not having a crystal ball.

Here you go again, you doubt adding something like a dock to ocean would cost much, just like in your earlier ramblings adding a flex deck, an extra 1000 tonnes, a hangar etc etc would cost much. In your lego fleets nothing costs much does it.

The RN was give a relative pittance to obtain an aviation support vessel, had it had been given suitable funds i doubt they would have built a ship with only an 18 yr life. they took an existing Invincible hull-form, built it as cheap and cheerfully as possible, with a cheap powerplant and systems for a knock down price (that may have involved some fiddling in the competition), I would say adding a floodable deck to that would have cost a bloody fortune. As it was Ocean has given and continues to give good service, so i can't see the point of the should have could have moans, just because she might not be a sexy as a concept that came a decade later.

The contracted run for Type 23 was signed for , and again, these battle of the atlantic ships continue to give fine service and whilst being knocked out until 1996, many other older classes were retired, so what should have been built instead? still they shouldnt have designed sea wolf should they, the RN should have listened to 1805 and developed sea dart, squeezed it onto a 1500 tonne corvette like a "insert class", added "something like" a kashtan, and a flex deck then sold 17,000 of them to the worlds navies, built end on end for a 400 year production run.

Go on then, do explain how a chieftan MBT could have trundled across the Falklands bog and tussock?

The point about the other navies is when they have had a reasonable tonnage to build they have gone for the LHD, ok the RN went first but the USN was the innovator.

A dock would not have added the cost of a T23, probably a lot less...not your blood fortune...how do you work that out...more than a whole Bay?? But it would have added so much value....you ignore the point about decommissioning the Fearless 5 years earlier and the savings from that.

All this cheap build nonsense is a PR scam, I doubt as cheap as the war built Magestic some of which made it to the 90s. Yes diesel engines whats wrong with those, if their role the Invincibles would probably have been better suited to them. If they are knackered you just take them out same as a GT....not like an old steam plant. All electronics quality or basic has to be changed anyway....how often do you keep a laptop? Steel just weld another plate in....

If you could be half rational I would dedate the Sea Dart with you....I just don't know how you can compare a 10km missle with an 120km one. Haven't you noticed how the RN has hung on to every T42 despite their poor sea keeping, age and heavy crews while the Sea Wolf ships often much younger have been let go.

A Sea Dart armed T23 (VLS) would have enable the early exit of the T42 and massive crew savings (c1400...c£45m p.a.).

 

[1805]

Well the whole point of having lightly equipped para units and special forces is not to misuse them or at least try not to. Arnhem was a specific case where things when wrong - 30 Corps was bogged down by logistical problems, terrain and German ressistance. The Germans also had armour near the Arnhem area which certainly didn't help matters.



Sure, a regiment of Challengers would be able to reach Tripoli and nothing the Libyns put in its way would be able to stop it - but then what? Would the Challengers be able to solve the whole list of problems the Libyans are facing and would all ressistance by pro-Gadafi forces cease?

It would break the stalemate we seem to be in at the moment and give the politicans (UK) a chance to rain in the RAF and their expensive and pointless bombing campaign.

One thought that did occur to me, if the RN was to try a bit of innovation for a change. It could build a ship say of 12,000t to RFA standards, fit 3 x 8 cell VLS with 2 crane/masts between them so that the cells could just be reloaded once emptied. A 127mm on the front and a PAAMS fit; the Samson radar would be very high on a 12,000t ship.

However the clever bit would be to have a flexible magzine for say up to 400 missiles, including say 200 MdCN SCALP. What would then be the need for all those Tornados? Cuts down on expensive VLS but would give the RN a ship with 4 times the missile capacity of a Burke.

Hanger for 2 Merlins on the back.

 

[Hambo]

The point about the other navies is when they have had a reasonable tonnage to build they have gone for the LHD, ok the RN went first but the USN was the innovator.

A dock would not have added the cost of a T23, probably a lot less...not you blood fortune...how do you work that out...more than a whole Bay?? But it would have added so much value....you ignore the point about decommissioning the Fearless 5 years earlier and the savings from that.

All this cheap build nonsense is a PR scam, I doubt as cheap as the war built Magestic some of which made it to the 90s. Yes diesel engines whats wrong with those, if their role the Invincibles would probably have been better suited to them. If they are knackered you just take them out same as a GT....not like an old steam plant. All electronics quality or basic has to be changed anyway....how often do you keep a laptop? Steel just weld another plate in....

If you could be half rational I would dedate the Sea Dart with you....I just don't know how you can compare a 10km missle with an 120km one. Haven't you noticed how the RN has hung on to every T42 despite their poor sea keeping, age and heavy crews while the Sea Wolf ships often much younger have been let go.

A Sea Dart armed T23 (VLS) would have enable the early exit of the T42 and massive crew savings (c1400).

Happy to debate the Missile question. Sea Dart was/is a fine missile that should have received more development cash, but I have an issue with a view that there was no need for Sea Wolf.

SD is 4.5m long, I read (I will try and find) a paper that describes the problems of boosting a ramjet missile for VL cell, in terms of the aerodynamics of bringing it into normal ramjet flight, mainly that it will be passing a significant altitude, with the liquid fuel under significant G forces before it can behave as an air breather, then tip over, then aquire the target, then prosecute the incoming missile/aircraft. The mechanical launcher is pretty much point and shoot , footage of then launching shows a moderate launch degree but we dont know the range of those youtube shots, so SD onType 45 is adequate but VL is difficult and therefore would be costly.

Anyway the point made was that by the time the missile pitches over an incomer fired from a sub or low flier would already be within the missile arc, a rocket propelled Standard or equivalent can use clever pitching thrust etc, angles that would starve an air breather of...well air. You need a regular, predictable flow of air at a certain speed (regulated by the shock cone).

so for close in threats I think you need an alternative eg SW or Sea Sparrow. Mechanical trained SD on T42 could be improved with IIR fuses etc but SW is the real sea skimmer specialist, down to 8 ft I believe, whereas the SD lowest ceiling is unknown but sources I read say 50 ft. Its the difference between CLOS and SARH.

I think viper now offers what SD in that era couldnt. There might have been alternatives, I dont know enough about the technology eg Sea Patriot?? if money was no object but I think SD was limited, could have been better, but I think SW is pretty deadly to anything within 12km, it should have been mounted on a lightweight launcher, if there was spare money, in my alternative history it would have been fitted to more RN vessels.

 

[STURM]

1805,

In your opinion does the RN need a new class of frigate which would be smaller and more lightly armed, hence cheaper, than the Dukes and Darings, to perform roles such as general patrol work, escort duties, etc,? This would then free up the Dukes and Darings for more vital tasks in more challenging/threatening enviroments.

 

[1805]

1805,

In your opinion does the RN need a new class of frigate which would be smaller and more lightly armed than the Dukes and Darings to perform roles such as general patrol work, escort duties, etc,? This would then free up theSukes and Darings for more vital tasks in more challenging enviroments.

Hehehe...you know how to stir things up!

 

[1805]

Happy to debate the Missile question. Sea Dart was/is a fine missile that should have received more development cash, but I have an issue with a view that there was no need for Sea Wolf.

SD is 4.5m long, I read (I will try and find) a paper that describes the problems of boosting a ramjet missile for VL cell, in terms of the aerodynamics of bringing it into normal ramjet flight, mainly that it will be passing a significant altitude, with the liquid fuel under significant G forces before it can behave as an air breather, then tip over, then aquire the target, then prosecute the incoming missile/aircraft. The mechanical launcher is pretty much point and shoot , footage of then launching shows a moderate launch degree but we dont know the range of those youtube shots, so SD onType 45 is adequate but VL is difficult and therefore would be costly.

Anyway the point made was that by the time the missile pitches over an incomer fired from a sub or low flier would already be within the missile arc, a rocket propelled Standard or equivalent can use clever pitching thrust etc, angles that would starve an air breather of...well air. You need a regular, predictable flow of air at a certain speed (regulated by the shock cone).

so for close in threats I think you need an alternative eg SW or Sea Sparrow. Mechanical trained SD on T42 could be improved with IIR fuses etc but SW is the real sea skimmer specialist, down to 8 ft I believe, whereas the SD lowest ceiling is unknown but sources I read say 50 ft. Its the difference between CLOS and SARH.

I think viper now offers what SD in that era couldnt. There might have been alternatives, I dont know enough about the technology eg Sea Patriot?? if money was no object but I think SD was limited, could have been better, but I think SW is pretty deadly to anything within 12km, it should have been mounted on a lightweight launcher, if there was spare money, in my alternative history it would have been fitted to more RN vessels.

SM2 is about 6.5m long, and a ramjet needs to get over mach 2 to work, it already has a booster to do this, maybe this would needed to be bigger. Actually there are quite a few pieces on the viability of VL Sea Dart. I can't believe it would be impossible. To deal with pop ups fit Goalkeeper, also the future option if the VLS was big enough quad pack something light when it comes along. But the idea was really never to develop SW and just focus the limited money on getting one missile right, so the resulting T42/T22 merger would have been something like the Oliver Hazard Perry class. The T23 would have been a logical follow on with just VLS and the electronics/general improvements of time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Ideally the mid 90's would have been the ideal time to build a euro LHD. But that would have been a higher risk, expensive option. It was a type of ship only the US had built in a size that is not comparible. Delays, development, etc. Its very easy after there are two or three classes of that type of ship to say we should have built that.

The fact it already had small carriers, I think would have made the idea of a LHD less compatable. If they had built something like a Canberra class, then why do you need the carriers? The amphibs could operate STOVL aircraft and it would have been a harder argument to have.

Once the RN has its carriers in hand, in about 10 years I wouldn't be suprised if they built a LHD or two.

 

[STURM]

Hehehe...you know how to stir things up!

Not my intention .

There was a columm in ''Naval Forces'' some years ago that argued that the USN was badly in need of a cheaper and smaller class of frigate to perform tasks such as patrols in the Caribbean, embargo enforcements, etc, which was being done by Burkes and Perrys which was considered an overkill.

However the clever bit would be to have a flexible magzine for say up to 400 missiles, including say 200 MdCN SCALP. What would then be the need for all those Tornados? Cuts down on expensive VLS but would give the RN a ship with 4 times the missile capacity of a Burke.

Yes but there would still be a need for Tornados to perform such roles as CAS and interdiction which can't be done by SCALPs. And such a ship would not be useful performing most peactime duties.

Off topic but has MBDA started working yet on an improved version of the Seawolf?

 

[StobieWan]

Not my intention .

There was a columm in ''Naval Forces'' some years ago that argued that the USN was badly in need of a cheaper and smaller class of frigate to perform tasks such as patrols in the Caribbean, embargo enforcements, etc, which was being done by Burkes nd Perrys which was considered an overkill.

VLS Sea Dart would have needed an entirely new motor to be at all safe - it's a liquid fueled system and it's fuelled (with 46 litres of kerosene) just prior to launch, actually on the launch arm - it'd be unsafe to do it any other way. To get around that, you'd either have to have a set of fuel lines running to the silos, or more sensibly, stick a new motor on the thing.

Again, I don't think Sea Dart would handle point defence from a Silo at all well - the motor is configured for a sustained burn (in fact it's burning almost all the way out to it's maximum range, giving it very good end game capabilities)

Sea Wolf has a rather fast burning motor to get the thing boosted to some useful speed and once that's gone, it's a glider, coasting to the target. Generally, it's not possible to combine both point/short range requirements with longer range area defence - the requirements of one physically compete with the requirements of another. If you look at Aster, the Aster-15 missile has all the thrusters and fast burning motor of a point defence missile, then it's planted on top of a longer range booster to make up Aster-30 - which in itself is less capable in point defence because it's pitch-over and capture happens a bit later in time, and hence, further away from the ship.


Sea Wolf was a logical choice for the time and has actually been an export success - something you're always demanding the UK do more of.

And it works - extremely well in fact- I mean, c'mon, routinely in commissioning tests, they make hits on incoming 4.5 inch shells - given when they were rolled out, that's pretty stellar.

Sea Wolf also came with a much faster rate of salvo fire for self defence - you're still limited by how many directors you have but you can physically ripple off as many rounds as you have available - six on the light weight launchers and up to the twenty odd that the 22's and 23's carry.

I think it's a shame that light weight S/W launchers weren't fitted to the later batch type 42's as was talked about at one time - they'd have made a superb inner layer defence.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Not my intention .

There was a columm in ''Naval Forces'' some years ago that argued that the USN was badly in need of a cheaper and smaller class of frigate to perform tasks such as patrols in the Caribbean, embargo enforcements, etc, which was being done by Burkes and Perrys which was considered an overkill.



Yes but there would still be a need for Tornados to perform such roles as CAS and interdiction which can't be done by SCALPs. And such a ship would not be useful performing most peactime duties.

Off topic but has MBDA started working yet on an improved version of the Seawolf?

The replacement for Seawolf is CAMM - 20+km range, ASRAAM body and much of the technology from Aster carried through, with a soft launch using compressed gas, plus a cold gas pitch over set of thrusters that puts the missile pointing in the direction of the target before the main motor runs, which is quite efficient in terms of using the motor's thrust and also acts as a safety feature in case the main motor doesn't fire (always a concern when you're popping the missile out the silo using gas)

Ian