The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

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?

I guess the USN does have the quite formidable USC and its force of cutters. I do support a hi-lo mix of surface ships. Although it seems wasteful having a 1st class ship doing route partol work; when there is not a "hot" conflict on it makes sense for them to do this work.

The RNs issue is numbers for even a "hot" conflict may not be sufficient for ASW.

I think such a large vessel could be a useful, the space for the 400 missile or some of them could be taken up with other cargo even vehicles?

They are replacing Sea Wolf with CAMM

 

[STURM]

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.

Ian,

From what we do know does ESSM has a similiar performance to Seawolf in terms of reaction time - from the moment it leaves the VLS to the time its heading towards the target?

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.

Are there any other foreign users apart from Malaysia and Chile?

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.

So would it be accurate to say that until the arival of RAM, ESSM and Barak, Seawolf was the most capable point defence missile in service? I've always wondered why no other missiles manufactures have made similiar claims about their missiles being able to hit a 4.5inch shell or something similiar. Off topic but MDDA is the only one that claims its short range AD missile [Jernas] is the only one that can hit cruise missiles which doesn't sound very believable given that there are other high performance AD missiles out there.

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.

The RMNs Lekiu frigates have a 16 cell VLS and 2 fire directors.

Fariz,

 

[1805]

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

I think its a case of focus, the original SW outfit was a disaster for the RN so heavy it could only be fitted on sizable ships and it was never a serious contender to retrofit. It is the cause of so many ships going into the Falklands effectively defenceless.

Here lies the problem lack of money, which also hindered Sea Dart. Answer focus on one, clearly this could not be SW....unless you are?

The basic point defence capability would have been better met my buying Phalanx and bolt on to all the existing frigates. A what if...I have always felt STAAG had similarities with Phalanx, obviously much earlier and less advanced but it was self contained, too ahead of its time.

I think Harpoon is kerosene fuelled and fired from VLS? I understand it was just RN caution at the time that had them fuelled on the rail.

Incidently Aster 30 is 4.9m length, and I was suggesting Goalkeeper does the inner defence, not that it be ignored.

 

[StevoJH]

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.

Late 1990's? Ocean was planned in the late 80's/early 90's and ordered in 1993, hardly the late 1990's. She was commissioned in 1998, at about the same time Albion was laid down.

The RN probably would have been better off settling for a pair of large LHD's instead of one smaller LPH and two smaller LPDs.

Edit: And the last T23 was built 1999-2002, not in 1996.

 

[1805]

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

I'm not sure about this 4.5" shell thing either, it was made before the Falklands war and seems to be behind much of the faith placed in the missile. But very different in combat, as I recall a T22 was hit by an iron bomb dropped from an A4, not sure that gives me much confidence it would have handled an Exocet.

As for export success it is really only the KD lekiu class as all the other users have inherited it on ex RN ships. True they could have taken it off! I didn't think light weight SW had 6 launchers wasn't that the original system.

The most telling thing about SW is the story behind the VL trials on an old Loch in the 60s; they went perfectly well, but the RN was to cautious and just went with box launchers, because thats what the USN was doing.....a theme?

 

[1805]

Edit: And the last T23 was built 1999-2002, not in 1996.

Thats my mistake I was going by the date of order, not laid down, you quite right on construction.

 

[STURM]

But very different in combat, as I recall a T22 was hit by an iron bomb dropped from an A4, not sure that gives me much confidence it would have handled an Exocet.

In ''Sandy'' Woodwards books I think he mentions that this was due to some temporary breakdown in the system rather than any flaw in the missile itself. He also mentions that some British Aerospace people sailed with theTask Force to perform work on the Seawolf, which had just entered service.

As for export success it is really only the KD lekiu class as all the other users have inherited it on ex RN ships. True they could have taken it off! I didn't think light weight SW had 6 launchers wasn't that the original system.

Brunei would have been a Seawolf user if it hadn't put its 2 Nakhoda Ragam frigates up for sale through Lurssen. The RMN didn't really have much choice in its selection of the Seawolf as integrating any other missile to the British made CMS and fire directors on the 2 Lekius would have been problematic. Chile would have faced the same problem. A Seawolf was fired live 2 weeks by a Lekiu frigate ago during an exercise.

But as Ian said, it's still an impressive missile, especially given that it was designed in the late 1970's! Very curious though as to how it compares against RAM, Barak and VL MICA in targeting ASM's, especially supersonic ones.

 

[1805]

In Sandy Woodwards books I think he mention that this was due to some breakdown in the system rather than any flaw in the missile itself.



A Seawolf was fired live 2 weeks by a Lekiu frigate ago during an exercise.
The RMN didn't really have much choice in its selection of the Seawolf as integrating any other missile to the British made CMS and fire directors would have been problematic.

I assume the same was true with the 3 ships built for Brunei, which were never accepted (not due to SW!).

 

[riksavage]

Maybe I misread your previous post....



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.



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.

The Para's aren't just leg infantry who jump out of aircraft/helo's. To join you have to pass the Pre-Parachute Selection Course (P-Company) before being posted to 2 or 3 Para. After a couple of years (sooner in some cases) you will then get the opportunity to go to 1 Para (SFSG) providing direct support to the SAS/SBS. SFSG receives additional specialist training to allow them to dovetail with SF operational sqn's, it also includes RM & RAF Reg personnel.

Both RM and Para Reg have very specific additional selection tests above and beyond what is undertaken for regular infantry. These are straight pass/fail exercises. Army personnel posted to supporting units (29 Commando or 7RHA for example) will undertake either the All-arms Commando Course or P-Company - failure to complete results in you being RTU'd.

Separate to SFSG, the Para and Commando formations also have another specialised tier - for the Para's it's the Pathfinders, for the RM it's 30 Commando's brigade recce force (former mountain and arctic warfare cadre), both units have a tough selection to gain entry.

 

[spoz]

A what if...I have always felt STAAG had similarities with Phalanx, obviously much earlier and less advanced but it was self contained, too ahead of its time.

Agree, STAAG had some strong similarities. Problem was, with the technology of the 50s it was a maintenance nightmare. Still I saw it take out a drogue and then start along the wire towards the tow aircraft who got very offended. Had the concept been developed into a second generation, who knows where it might have ended? But I suspect that is 100% hindsight - after all, STAAG entered service when the cry was all for missiles.

 

[Hambo]

I believe Sea Dart is stored ready fuelled, its the subject of much debate, butI think it was. Still makes it hard to fire from a VLS.

Most VLS ships that fire larger SAMs are significantly bigger than those with a mechanical arm, the sheer dimensions of the VLS pack , that can be up to 8m deep from the deck dictate a certain hull form. Bigger ships wouldnt be a bad thing but by the time you add all the fire separation bulkheads and NBC citadels on a bigger hull you would add cost, its not just cheap steel, its also fuel costs to propel it.

Sea wolf was fitted to relatively small leanders, as well as T22,T23 and some foreign vessels, it has been a success and one of the few SAM systems on naval vessels with a list of kills to its name.

Phalanx leaves the inner defence a bit late, again no more reliable than a PDMS.

The difficulties with Sw were down to using for then cutting edge computer systems, personally I would praise the RN for innovation in pushing the boundaries. As computers became smaller and more powerful,so has the need for massive racks of computers to operate SW.

Point defence is needed, an enemy pilot is going to be pretty thick to fly high into a modern warship, so very few engagements will be at 100km, a sensible attack would be at wave top, just as the Argentines figured out and the T42/22 combo would have worked with a couple more fire channels and without a navigational cock up.

1805, saying SW was ineffective is just a way for you to boost your SD argument. SW is a bloody good missile system, and is still being upgraded today, meaning a good 35 year life before CAMM takes over .

 

[StobieWan]

I think its a case of focus, the original SW outfit was a disaster for the RN so heavy it could only be fitted on sizable ships and it was never a serious contender to retrofit. It is the cause of so many ships going into the Falklands effectively defenceless.

Here lies the problem lack of money, which also hindered Sea Dart. Answer focus on one, clearly this could not be SW....unless you are?

Whereas Sea Dart would have fitted easily and simply to any light weight ship? I don't follow your argument - Sea Wolf was difficult to fit to the Leanders, largely because they were quite light and lacked stability margin.Sea Dart would have been *worse*..

Not developing SW wouldn't have fixed this "issue" - they'd still have no decent missile system. This is a totally bogus argument and I can't for the life of me see where it springs from.

Ian

 

[1805]

Whereas Sea Dart would have fitted easily and simply to any light weight ship? I don't follow your argument - Sea Wolf was difficult to fit to the Leanders, largely because they were quite light and lacked stability margin.Sea Dart would have been *worse*..

Not developing SW wouldn't have fixed this "issue" - they'd still have no decent missile system. This is a totally bogus argument and I can't for the life of me see where it springs from.

Ian

Sea Dart was an area defence weapon, it was not intended to be retro fitted into the existing escort fleet, although it would have been great to have fitted it to the Counties (area defence ships); this would have made them much more useful than fitting Exocet (this just reduced their usefulness for shore bombardment).

The RN was in a difficult position post the loss of the carriers so a single class of in the T42/T22 (is this really a radical concept or would it look like the USN Perry's?) role of say 30 ships all armed with Sea Dart (76mm & Phalanx) and rebuilt force of Counties/follow on command ships (ideally with a 6”) would have provided a very hostile air environment? BTW I still think there was a role for a more complex commard/air defence ship of c7-8,000t.

It is perhaps regrettable they took Sea Dart off the Invincibles once they lost the FA2 cover, they have no meaningful area defence?

If the inner layer had been 3” twins (as the RCN did on their modified Type 12s) rather than 4.5” twins, with upgraded bolt on Phalanx.

A point defence system is intended to be a basic defence that can be easily fitted to many ships. The US actually called Sparrow a basic point defence system. When a point defence system requires as much space as an areas system it is missed the point!!!

 

[1805]

I believe Sea Dart is stored ready fuelled, its the subject of much debate, butI think it was. Still makes it hard to fire from a VLS.

.

I have read conflicting things on this point, I think it may have been fuelled on the rail in the initial models and later as sealed units, however it was offered as a containerised version for small ships, which would suggest it could be treated as such.

You miss my point on SW, I am not saying in its finally VLS it was a bad missile, it did become compact and could be fitted to small ships, but the initial concept was a disaster for the RN creating a huge capability gap for all those ships that had to soldiered on with Sea Cat. The rebuilds of the Leanders were so expensive and to weight was a huge issue.

There was just not the money to develop both and a focused approach could have given the RN a uniform fleet of very powerful ships. The point about money is one of timing eventually both SD & SW were developed into very effective systems but the issues is this was achieved over a very long period of time, and by then better systems where available.

I agree on Phalanx as the sole point defence system but I would rather have had a single Phalanx than a couple of Sea Cats mounts?

 

[StobieWan]

I'm not sure about this 4.5" shell thing either, it was made before the Falklands war and seems to be behind much of the faith placed in the missile. But very different in combat, as I recall a T22 was hit by an iron bomb dropped from an A4, not sure that gives me much confidence it would have handled an Exocet.

The Type 22's were quite new in service, and Seawolf was very new in service - there was a lot of post commissioning snagging going on, even to the extent that a technician from the manufacturer was seen shinning up a mast with a can of WD40 and a rubber seal - it's not fair or reasonable to condemn the entire missile system based on the fact that a newly commissioned ship was sent to war needing some on the spot fixes.

Sea Wolf worked pretty well when it got a lock and remains a pretty capable system,

Ian

 

[1805]

Agree, STAAG had some strong similarities. Problem was, with the technology of the 50s it was a maintenance nightmare. Still I saw it take out a drogue and then start along the wire towards the tow aircraft who got very offended. Had the concept been developed into a second generation, who knows where it might have ended? But I suspect that is 100% hindsight - after all, STAAG entered service when the cry was all for missiles.

That must have been a sight to see ;-) Yes all with hindsight, there seems to be very little information on it on the web. I did think a weather shield might have helped!! It's one of those things, similar to the way the USN/RN lost interested in 3" guns as AA weapons and the initial Italian up and over version was a disaster, they persevered to produce what has proved to be one of the great naval weapons of the modern period.

 

[riksavage]

The Type 22's were quite new in service, and Seawolf was very new in service - there was a lot of post commissioning snagging going on, even to the extent that a technician from the manufacturer was seen shinning up a mast with a can of WD40 and a rubber seal - it's not fair or reasonable to condemn the entire missile system based on the fact that a newly commissioned ship was sent to war needing some on the spot fixes.

Sea Wolf worked pretty well when it got a lock and remains a pretty capable system,

Ian

What is the reload time of a twin SeaDart mount? I was under the impression that the Sw vertical launch variant was better able to deal with a saturation attacks, whereby more than two missiles were aimed at a single ship.

I'm surprised the Invincible's didn't have the SeaDart launcher replaced with a six round GWS-25 Conventionally Launched Sw unit similar in design to that fitted to the T22, zero deck penetration. Could the T22 Sw launcher be reloaded at sea?

It's easy to criticize Sw in hindsight ,but there are very few examples out there of a self-defense missile system tested to the extreme like Sw was in 82. The general clutter and sea-state contributed to loss of lock in certain cases and I doubt any system available at the time could have mitigated all environmental factors (weather, pitch and roll, ships crossing in front of one another).

 

[StobieWan]

Ian,

From what we do know does ESSM has a similiar performance to Seawolf in terms of reaction time - from the moment it leaves the VLS to the time its heading towards the target?



Are there any other foreign users apart from Malaysia and Chile?



So would it be accurate to say that until the arival of RAM, ESSM and Barak, Seawolf was the most capable point defence missile in service? I've always wondered why no other missiles manufactures have made similiar claims about their missiles being able to hit a 4.5inch shell or something similiar. Off topic but MDDA is the only one that claims its short range AD missile [Jernas] is the only one that can hit cruise missiles which doesn't sound very believable given that there are other high performance AD missiles out there.



The RMNs Lekiu frigates have a 16 cell VLS and 2 fire directors.

Fariz,

As far as I understand it, ESSM is very capable missile with a much longer range than SeaWolf is - it's a pretty spritely performer with fairly nimble turning capability. It pretty much outclasses SeaWolf in terms of range and terminal effects, and should be about as good close in. I like it lots from what I've seen.

Later systems are very different - I personally have a lot of respect for RAM - it's a neat system made from bits of kit that already work and from comments on other forums by people who should know, they reckon it's not unusual for it to *hit* the target, not just get a proximity kill. RAM's one of the systems that would have been very useful for the RN if the timings had been right.

I doubt the hitting an incoming shell gets talked up as there are tougher targets out there but at the time, it was pretty revolutionary.


Ian

 

[1805]

The Type 22's were quite new in service, and Seawolf was very new in service - there was a lot of post commissioning snagging going on, even to the extent that a technician from the manufacturer was seen shinning up a mast with a can of WD40 and a rubber seal - it's not fair or reasonable to condemn the entire missile system based on the fact that a newly commissioned ship was sent to war needing some on the spot fixes.

Sea Wolf worked pretty well when it got a lock and remains a pretty capable system,

Ian

Actually I'm not being critical of where it ended up but the RN has a responsibility to protect the fleet at all times not just at some point in the future; the Falklands fleet was armed with a few under developed SW & SD ships, and the rest had useless Sea Cat & Sea Slug (has a missile ever had a more appropriate name!) and make do old 40mm & 20mm guns (even GMPG!) originally intended to prevent a USS Cole type incident and not in their original AA role.

This is still to often the case as we see the RN ending up with massive capability gaps...no fleet fighter cover 2007 - 2020?

 

[StobieWan]

What is the reload time of a twin SeaDart mount? I was under the impression that the Sw vertical launch variant was better able to deal with a saturation attacks, whereby more than two missiles were aimed at a single ship.

I'm surprised the Invincible's didn't have the SeaDart launcher replaced with a six round GWS-25 Conventionally Launched Sw unit similar in design to that fitted to the T22, zero deck penetration. Could the T22 Sw launcher be reloaded at sea?

Sw is one of the few missile systems used under extreme duress in an extremely cluttered environment. It's easy to criticize in hindsight ,but there are very few examples out there of a self-defense missile system tested to the extreme like Sw was in 82.

Oh, no question, SeaWolf was much more resistant to saturation attacks than Sea Dart just on the basis of it's salvo rate - you still needed a TI running to illuminate the target but you could rattle off rounds as fast as you could hit stuff - which is why it was much better for a point defence system.

Invincible's Sea Dart's were pulled not for performance but for space - clearing that forward area freed up an extra spot on deck.

And yes, the 22's launcher could be (and was) reloaded at sea - must have been a hairy job under fire mind you..


Ian